--On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:12 PM <deusexmadmachina@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 12:33:14 PM UTC-4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:No. Precisely zi'o since the place structure would be different changing semantics
This doesn't follow. The presence of a {zo'e} in a bridi does not imply the existence of an entity for which the bridi holds if the {zo'e} is substituted for that entity. That's {da}. As an elliptical, {zo'e} assumes the value of whatever sumti is contextually implied... and if context implies that nothing fits in that place, that sumti is {zi'o}. {zi'o} is a way of explicitly expressing that that particular place is inapplicable in the current context, but {zo'e} is not an explicit way of expressing that it is; it's a way of skipping a place and leaving its value implied.
That's wrong about {zo'e} and about {zi'o}. {zo'e} absolutely does imply the existence of an entity that satisfies the bridi. The way in which it's different from {da} is that it also makes a claim about what that entity is (specifically, that its value can be inferred from context, or that its particular value isn't important in this context). {mi patfu zo'e} implies {mi patfu da} every bit as much as {mi patfu do} does.{zi'o}, on the other hand, doesn't say anything at all about what can or can't fill that place. All it does is create a new predicate that doesn't include that place. Now, as a practical matter, it's relatively rare to assert a predicate that explicitly removes a place unless you want to imply that the predicate with that place wouldn't also hold, but that's by no means necessary. The empty set satisfies {zilcmi} ({se cmima be zi'o}, but so do all other sets. The members place is removed, but there's no implication that it's necessarily unfillable.Moreover, {kelci} is already sometimes used in the sense of playing a game, there exists text that would not break if read using my new definition {kelci}, but would break if read using my new {kelci} and edited to fill in the x3 place with {zi'o}. From La Alis chapter 8:
.i lo nu kelci cu cfari .i la .alis. cu jinvi lo du'u no roi lo nunji'e pu viska lo tai kelcrkroke foldi
In this context, {lo nu kelci be fi zi'o} would be incorrect. They are playing croquet.
{lo nu kelci be fi zi'o}, if kelci3 were the game, would still be true. If you ignore what game they're playing, they're still playing. {zo'e} implies {da}, but {zi'o} does not imply {no da}.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/09ceaddd-3561-422a-a4b4-958d6562260co%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/CABM8VqdzVM2w3mXgUcZG6uqkBy-Q%2BLY5dRre-edXHu3%2Bn_Cc5Q%40mail.gmail.com.