From jay.kominek@colorado.edu Sun Jun 10 15:47:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 10 Jun 2001 22:47:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 84138 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2001 22:47:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Jun 2001 22:47:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ucsub.colorado.edu) (128.138.129.12) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 22:47:02 -0000 Received: from ucsub.colorado.edu (kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu [128.138.129.12]) by ucsub.colorado.edu (8.11.2/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id f5AMl1m04130 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:47:01 -0600 (MDT) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:47:01 -0600 (MDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] zi'o and modals In-Reply-To: <3B23E602.114E2027@flash.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Jay Kominek On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Richard Todd wrote: > 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. zi'o is nonexistance of the place, though, not nonexistance of the referent(?) of that place. > 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. Shouldn't a respond with noda, not zi'o? - Jay Kominek