Robin's gadri Proposal
xod:
> > {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".
>
> Is that the same as asserting that it is true, with zero xes in the
> second place? Then this is simply unfair bias against the number zero.
No, it is not the same as saying it is true with zero xes
in that place. It says that there is no value you can put
in that place to make the relationship hold.
You can put a term that says that no value applies, namely
{noda}, but you cannot put a term that stands for a value.
If you fill it with {su'oda} or {cida} you are not putting
values either, all you are saying is that there is at least
one, or exactly three, values that will satisfy the relationship.
An actual value might be {le zarci}. {noda}, {pada}, {reda} are
not values, they just tell you how many values there are that
make the relationship true.
> Then replace the case with some gismu and instance where you feel noda
> would be appropriate, and then re-answer the question. Unless you want
> to assert that noda is never really correct, the physical
> 'impossibility' of klama noda is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
I want to assert that {zo'e} is never correct for {noda}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail