From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Jun 24 15:21:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 24 Jun 2001 22:21:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 61849 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2001 22:21:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jun 2001 22:21:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Jun 2001 22:21:50 -0000 Received: from m105-mp1-cvx2c.bre.ntl.com ([62.253.88.105] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15EI1g-0004yg-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:06:40 +0100 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] zi'o and modals Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:20:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" [Is it better to reply late than never?] John: > 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. Ah, but "mi klama bai zi'o" entails "mi klama", while "mi klama bai no da" does not entail "mi klama". Hence for a: do klama bai ma b: zi'o B is saying that B went without it being specified whether B was compelled, though A would Griceanly infer that B was uncompelled (why else would B have answered "zi'o" and not something more informative). And for a; do klama bai ma b: no da B is saying that nothing compelled B to go, without it being specified whether B went or not. --And.