Robin's gadri Proposal
All of this makes the proposed definitions of gadri thoroughly unintelligible. It was bad enough that the object behind {lo} was only incidentally a broda, though not any way specified, but now it turns out that it can't be specified (by definition), being either the obvious one (which there ain't one of in most contexts) or the we don't care which one (which can't be right, since we have to pick one that turns out also to be a broda, so we do care). And, of course, in neither case does it serve for generality or intensionality or any other thing that {lo} is supposed to take care of — even plurality. Which brings up the problem of whatever in the Hell {su'o zo'e} could possibly mean other than {zo'e} (there is only one after all) and {su'o da} (since all we know about it is that it is). As I say, so fast shuffles have gone on here — but not even among various meanings of {zo'e} but among the various clouds or cuckoos in Cloudcuckooland.
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:pc:
> Someplace someone is going to have to give an explicit exposition of the
> logic of {zo'e}. It seems to be being used — here and earlier — in
> something like three different and to me incompatible ways: is it an
> open variable (one without a quantifier) or is it a pronoun for indifferent
> terms or is it a pronoun for obvious terms or is it yet something else again.
The way I understand it, using zo'e is (semantically) equivalent to
omitting the term. Sometimes it cannot be omitted for syntactic reasons,
but that does not add semantic content.
Both indifferent and obvious terms can be omitted, which is a good
thing: If either were not omissible sentences would become unbearably
wordy. Therefore, zo'e can stand for indifferent or obvious terms.
As for open variables, I would like unquantified da, de, di to be
that.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail