WikiDiscuss

pc:
> 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.

I guess if ko'a is different from ko'e, then lo nomei be ko'a
might be different from lo nomei be ko'e.

A more absolute nothing might be referred to as {lo noda}.
Maybe {lo du jo'u lo noda} for Sartre's "Being and Nothing(ness)".

But {noda} by itself certainly does not refer to the thing that
is nothing. It refers to nothing in the sense that it doesn't refer
to anything. It says that no thing applies. Similarly {pada} does not
refer to anything either. It just says that exactly one thing applies,
but without referring to the one thing that applies.

> 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}.

So {la djig zbasu lo munje noda} implicates {la djig zabsu lo munje zi'o}?
Probably that's how it will turn out in practice, but this I would simply
take as evidence of {zbasu}'s bloatedness. Otherwise, if it's a general rule,
then {mi patfu noda} should also implicate {mi patfu zi'o}. Or what is
special about the x3 of zbasu that the x2 of patfu doesn't have?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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