From richardt@flash.net Sun Jun 10 19:37:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 02:37:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 74782 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 02:37:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 02:37:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout4-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.103) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 02:37:57 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.101.31]) by pimout4-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5B2btm139184; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:37:55 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout4-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B241E60.8483A66F@flash.net> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:26:56 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Cowan Cc: 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 John Cowan wrote: > Thus if mi klama zo'e, then mi klama zi'o. The converse need not > be true, though. You've lost me there. Can you elaborate on why this is true? I thought: {zo'e} is an elided value that you can assume is unimportant. Not only does it exist, but whatever value it has makes the sentence true. So, I don't see how {mi klama zo'e} implies {mi klama zi'o}, or the converse. One has an unspecified, unimportant destination, and the other is a kind of going that has no destination (zi'o deleted it). Right?