From pycyn@aol.com Sat Aug 19 08:23:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32546 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2000 15:23:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Aug 2000 15:23:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2000 15:23:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id a.28.99b7047 (4235) for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 11:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <28.99b7047.26d00084@aol.com> Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 11:23:48 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Careful with noi! To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-08-19 05:45:40 EDT, aulun writes: << What use of zi'o should there be, if it didn't explicitely express that the place respective is *empty* and not just irrelevant (and hence unexpressed) >> It simply creates a new predicate which lacks that place. It does not *state* that that place is empty (if it did, it would -- as we have seen several times -- amount to denying that the basic predicate applies). It considers the issue of something like what the basic predicate describes, but without considering the deleted factor. Obviously, all the cases to which the original predicate applies also fit this new predicate, once the oblided factor is removed from the tuples. So the interesting question is whether there are other cases and the first example says that there are. But using {zi'o} does not, on any reading of The Book, require that only these other cases are referred to by a {zi'o}d form