WikiDiscuss

Jorge Llambías wrote:

>I don't think {noda} can be elided. Certainly {mi klama le zarci}
>is not a case of elision of {bai noda}.
>
>{mi klama le zarci bai noda} does not say that I do go to the
>market and that nothing forces me to do so. It says much less:
>that there is nothing that forces me to go to the market.
>I may go unforced, or maybe I don't go: in both cases nothing
>is forcing me to go.
>
>{klama} has five argument places, no more, no less.
>{klama bai} has six argument places.
>
>They are different relationships, even if not completely unrelated.
>If {klama bai} holds of some six argument values, then {klama} will
>hold of the corresponding five, but from klama holding of some five
>arguments I can conclude nothing about {klama bai}: it may or may
>not hold of some six arguments.
>
>{noda} is a term, it is not an argument (value). In fact, it says
>that no value in that position will make the relationship true.
>
>

When I say "klama", doesn't that mean "zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e"?
Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
different selbri.

Now what if we discover a piece of text where the value noda is
understood as obvious for a certain place, and is being elided in that
context? Would it prove my argument, or would you reject it as incorrect
Lojban? Suppose we were discussing wandering aimlessly. Then would
"ba'anai mi .e le mi gerku puzuze'u klama fo la .brodueis." confuse a
reasonable reader as being unrelated to the discussion, since I 'said'
that we had a destination?

In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and never
an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?

>Quantified terms are not argument values, they only
>say how many values will satisfy the relationship.
>
>{zo'e} stands for an implicit (obvious or irrelevant) value, not
>for a term.
>
>

But the number of terms should obey the same properties as obviousness
and irrelevance. It should be free to be zero as easily as three.

>If any bridi had any number of implicit arguments, then {zi'o}
>would be pointless. {broda zi'o} would be equivalent to
>{broda zi'o fi'o se broda zo'e}, which means that the argument
>place we remove with {zi'o} is still always there through
>{fi'o se broda}.
>
>

Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda, but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
real number?

Whatever the case, I should think that zi'o would prevent the ghost zo'e
from re-appearing in that place.

In your scheme, there is no point ever in BAU zi'o.

--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.