Robin's gadri Proposal
Well, {lo nomei} is problematic too, because {nomei} is if {mei} does not refer to sets: pluralities or groups can not be empty, apparently. We leave open the question whether creating something out of several nomei is different from creating out of one.
The pragmatic solution is that {la djig zbasu lo munje noda} (I would say {le} probably) denies {la djig zbasu lo munje da} and implicates that the failure is from the insistence that there was some preexisting material. Is pragmatics enough? Probably; we all sense that the above is different from {la djig na zbasu lo munje da}.
On Wednesday 28 July 2004 18:22, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.
zbasu lo munje lo nomei. There's been another suggestion too, {nondza} or some
such. {zbasu lo munje zi'o} means that the world was created, but leaves open
whether there was any raw material.
phma
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa