Subject: [lojban] zo'e = ? su'o de (was Re: What the heck is this crap?)

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 19:28:54 -0600

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 06:42:39PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
[...]
> But it gets worse. According to Nick Nicholas, in a recent email to me:
> 
> > zo'e = su'o de
> >
> > ro bangu cu selfi'i zo'e = ro da poi bangu; su'o de zo'u: da selfintide
> > (This is read as there being a possibly distinct de for each da)
> >
> > zo'e finti ro bangu = su'o de; ro da poi bangu zo'u: de finti da
> > (This is read as there being at least one de inventing all da)

This is definitely *not* book lojban (unless it's hiding somewhere),
whether or not jboskepre agree on it.

zo'e == "implied value". This means it can mean things which don't
claim existence, such as "lo'e pavyseljirna" or "lo'i cridrdrakone"
(ok; well on that last I guess it depends on whether ro is importing,
no? -- imho it would *suck* *ass* if ro were importing though, as
lo'i broda wouldn't be something you could say when the set is
empty, since the inner quantifier is ro. Also I gather that
nonimporting universal quantifier is more standard in logic as
well). This isn't the same as "su'o de" ("de") because it doesn't
involve an existential quantifier.

The only restrictions the book places on what zo'e can represent is
that zo'e can't stand for "noda" and it can't stand for "zi'o".

-- 
Jordan DeLong - [email-masked]
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku