WikiDiscuss

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> > Then, klama noda is not covered by the meaning of klama, making it a
> > different selbri.
>
> One way to look at it, and one which I would be willing to enshrine, is
> that "klama no da" == "klama zi'o", which is, indeed, a different
> selbri.

No, that won't work. klama noda is equivalent to klama naku su'oda, which is
a negative claim (it is about what is not the case), whereas klama zi'o,
though the x2 has been dropped, is still an affirmative claim (about what
is the case).

> A: mi gasnu co favytcini lo samru'e li pa
>
> B: xu cnino samru'e
>
> A: go'i
>
> B: .ua do gasnu co favytcini fo no da

I think that this dialogue is better served with zi'o, or with lo plus a brivla
that means "Nothing, considered as something". To say that Jeeg created the
world out of nothing does not mean that la djig. zbasu lo munje noda, for that
would simply deny that there was anything that Jeeg created the world from,
leaving it open whether he created it at all.

> And there you are.

And there you are.

--
When I'm stuck in something boring John Cowan
where reading would be impossible or (who loves Asimov too)
rude, I often set up math problems for jcowan@reutershealth.com
myself and solve them as a way to pass http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
the time. --John Jenkins http://www.reutershealth.com