WikiDiscuss

pc:
> 6. {zi'o} doesn't refer to nothing either,

Here you seem to talk about a nothing that is something,
and claiming that {zi'o} does not refer to it. What
you should say is that {zi'o} does indeed refer to
nothing, i.e. it does not refer to anything.

> (the answer
> to "To what does {zi'o} refer?" is {na'i}, the
> presupposition of the question — that {zi'o}
> refers — is false).

I think {zo zi'o sinxa no da} is perfectly fine and
requires no {na'i}: "There is no x such that {zi'o}
refers to x".

> (Sartre's book would be Lojbanned, roughly but
> literally, as {le nu zaste ku e le nu na zaste}.)

Literally from the French? I can't say I know how
exactly "néant" works in French, but the usual
Spanish translation is "El ser y la nada", where
"nada" means "nothing" (and is used, just as in
English, in both senses, logical and reified).
The English translation is usually "Being and
Nothingness", but sometimes "Being and Nothing"
too.

Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would rather
use something like {lo me da e lo no da}. Is it
really about zasti at all?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail