WikiDiscuss

---

> zo'e/ (KOhA7)/
>
> *unspecif it*
>
> pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value; has some value which makes
> bridi true

The definition as it stands is obviously wrong, because not
all bridi with zo'e are true.

But, if we consider only true bridi's, then zo'e represents
an obvious or irrelevant value that indeed makes the bridi true.
If no value in that position makes the bridi true, then zo'e
cannot represent a value, can it?

> So I guess if zero is the number of items that make the bridi true, then
> it refers to the empty set. The definition suggests that zo'e can
> represent a full expression that belongs in a tergi'u, beyond a simple
> sumti.

The definition says that zo'e represents a value, not an expression.

The definition is obviously broken: if no value makes the bridi
true, zo'e cannot possibly have a value which makes the bridi true.

One way to fix that is to say that in cases where no value makes
the bridi true, zo'e can't be used.

Another way is to say that {zo'e} doesn't really need to have values,
it just represents words, so it can stand for example for the words
{no da}, which have meaning in a full sentence, but don't refer to any
value. This would not be a fix, though, it would break the
definition even more.

{zo'e} can stand for the empty set, of course, that's a value.
We rarely make claims about the empty set in everyday discourse,
but if the empty set is the obvious value, there's no problem in
{zo'e} referring to it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush