From cowan@ccil.org Sun Jun 10 19:10:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 02:10:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 45609 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 02:10:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 02:10:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 02:10:25 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 159H9w-00086q-00; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:10:28 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] zi'o and modals In-Reply-To: <3B23E602.114E2027@flash.net> from Richard Todd at "Jun 10, 2001 04:26:26 pm" To: Richard Todd Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:10:28 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan Richard Todd scripsit: > Are these really logically equivalent? Not mentioning a compelling > force is the same as claiming outright that it is nonexistent? "zi'o" does not claim that the place filled by it is "nonexistent" in the sense that there is no such thing. It just simplifies the relationship, creating another relationship that has one fewer places. Thus if mi klama zo'e, then mi klama zi'o. The converse need not be true, though. > 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. I think that "noda" would be a better reply than "zi'o": there are no things which compel me to go. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter