WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Robin's gadri Proposal

posts: 1912

xod:
> When I say "klama", doesn't that mean "zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e"?

Yes.

> Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
> different selbri.

Not sure what you mean. {klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".

{klama} is the selbri, which is said to not hold in this case.

> 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?

It would be interesting to see such case.

> 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?

The canonical answer:
The x2 of klama is wherever you end up after the klamaing is over.
There can't be an event of klama that does not end with the x1
at x2. The x2 is not the destination, as in the place the goer
intends to go, but just the place where the goer ends up at.

My answer:
Lojban gismu are bloated. In general they have too many places,
which means they force you to say things you don't want to
(unless you are prepared to use zi'o all over the place).

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

Would you say that {naku} is ever obvious/irrelevant? {noda}
is simply {naku su'oda}.

> Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda,

Certainly not! But {zo'e} does entail {su'oda}.

>but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
> real number?

{zi'o} eliminates the place from the place structure. I don't
understand what you mean there.

> 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.

There is little point, right. It only serves to emphasize that
a place is not present, but the place would not be present
anyway if the BAI was not mentioned to begin with. Also, it
may make sense in a {go'i BAI zi'o} situation, for example.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail