From richardt@flash.net Sun Jun 10 15:37:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 10 Jun 2001 22:37:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 24616 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2001 22:37:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jun 2001 22:37:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout3-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.102) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 22:37:27 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.104.217]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5AMbPg239812 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:37:25 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout3-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B23E602.114E2027@flash.net> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:26:26 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] zi'o and modals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard Todd Craig wrote: > > mi klama is more succinct. There's no reason to say mi klama bai zi'o, when > mi klama is the same thing. Are these really logically equivalent? Not mentioning a compelling force is the same as claiming outright that it is nonexistent? I know that for sumti places, the understood value is {zo'e}, which is not equivalent to {zo'i}. I don't see why modal values would be any different. For instance, wouldn't this be reasonable, under the right circumstances?: a: mi klama ; I go b: go'i bai ma ; Compelled by what? a: zi'o ; Nonexistent, doesn't apply b: je'e ; roger. Richard