WikiDiscuss

I am inclined to think that the problem is either with having "creates" among the meanings of {zbasu} or with using {zbasu} for what Jeeg is supposed to have done. Dropping plaaces from predicates creates problem in vocabulary since many concepts are to be found only as remote places in some other predicate. I suspect the gismu list (well, maybe we can do some of them with lujvo) would have to more than double to accomodate all the concepts that occur only in usually dropped places (logical language creators seem always to be lumpers, later workers seem usually to be splitters). {tu'a la djig se jalge lenu le munje cu zasti} is almost all we need; maybe augmented by comments involving {minde} or {ganzu} (though both of these involve problems — who is commanded, what is organized — which may be obviated by the preceding {se jalge} claim).

If we remove all the places bound conceptually to each basic predicate, we will not help much, since, for example, at least is bound to (so is but not, I think, unless feet count).

The standard claim about God creating the world ex nihilo takes place in a context of the assumption that God created the world and is merely a counter to the suggestion that It did it in a {ganzu} sort of way — or even a {zbasu} one. In that context, the {noda} with {zbasu} works even semantically, not just pragmatically.
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pc:
> At least since Fridegesus (I haven't checked the spelling), talking about
> nothing has been a problem (see the bit from Alice cited in CLL). Lojban
> ought to do a good job at this and make it clear that what is involved is
> always simply the denial of something. And I think it does.

So do I. That's why I think it odd that {zbasu fi noda} would even
implicate that something did go on, when it is just a denial of
something.

> Is {lo noda} really grammatical?

Yep.

> What does it mean, spelled out in detail?

I would say something like "that which is nothing". An odd thing indeed.

> I am not at all sure that {la djig zbasu le munje noda} implicates {la djig
> zbasu le munje zi'o}, unless we can expand on what that means.

{la djig zbasu le munje zi'o} means that Jeeg made the world. Whether
or not there was some material to start with is not mentioned.

> I don't mean
> that the lack of material is the only reason that Jeeg didn't pull it off,
> only that it is the one being blamed at the moment. In the traditional case,
> of course, it is not even the reason it did not come off, since it did, and
> in that case the {zi'o} form is appropiate.

But is the {noda} form appropriate to say that Jeeg did pull it off?

> Consequently, we can see how
> {zbasu2} is different from {patfu2}: being a father is definitionally linked
> (bound) to there being children of the subject while creating is not so
> linked to there being preexisting material out of which to construct
> (asssuming the traditional story is not just meaningless). Not having
> children is sufficient (and also necessary) for not being a father, not
> having material is neither for not creating.

That's why I think {zbasu} is bloated, or at least it has a more restricted
meaning than "create". It would be better to have a basic word for the more
general meaning "x1 makes x2", from which the more specific "x1 makes x2
out of x3" can be derived, than the other way around.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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