Well, the history of {zo'e} shows that at one point it (or its predecessor) did indeed say something like "the obvious one or we don't care which one", but that was consciously dropped for the present versin. Obviously, your use of {zo'e} in the "definition" of {lo} relies on the first of those possibilities (though probably "salient" rather than "obvious" would be to the point). Alas, that is not what the current specification of {zo'e} is. Now would be a good time
to change it (as should be done), but it is not clear what hat change should be. The past usage is at least in three different directions, with no obvious connection other than that we want to say that we are not saying what the
referent is (that is, choosing not to leave the place blank or use a short scope particular quantifier).
As for the claim that sentences involving {zo'e} must be able to be false, note that I just said they were and under what conditions. I suppose that you mean something more, something like what you need for your "definition" to become plausible, roughly that the referent is a salient object in the context, thus cutting it free from reliance on {brode} in the formula. But that is getting back to making it something best defined in terms of {lo}, the locus of saliency within Lojban. It also goes against the history of {zo'e}, which
is entirely in the context
of filling places in predicates, functioning in lieu of referring, not as an independent referring _expression_. And, of course, the salience is within that context; we want to salient candidate for a particular place, whether or not its filling that space makes for a true proposition. But this is a long way from {zo'e} now, which was, admittedly, a long way from what it was probably meant to be.
So, aside from wondering what the purpose of your definition is and noting that the words used ({zo'e}, {noi}) are wrong, I suspect the intention is probably good.
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 5:31 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote: