Robin's gadri Proposal
Jorge Llambas wrote:
>xod:
>
>
>>>{klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
>>>da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
>>>the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".
>>>
>>>
>>Is that the same as asserting that it is true, with zero xes in the
>>second place? Then this is simply unfair bias against the number zero.
>>
>>
>
>No, it is not the same as saying it is true with zero xes
>in that place. It says that there is no value you can put
>in that place to make the relationship hold.
>
>
What is the difference between "patfu noda" and "patfu no selpatfu". I
have no kids, I have zero kids, I don't have any kids, it's not true
that I have at least one kid...
>You can put a term that says that no value applies, namely
>{noda}, but you cannot put a term that stands for a value.
>If you fill it with {su'oda} or {cida} you are not putting
>values either, all you are saying is that there is at least
>one, or exactly three, values that will satisfy the relationship.
>An actual value might be {le zarci}. {noda}, {pada}, {reda} are
>not values, they just tell you how many values there are that
>make the relationship true.
>
>
>
>>Then replace the case with some gismu and instance where you feel noda
>>would be appropriate, and then re-answer the question. Unless you want
>>to assert that noda is never really correct, the physical
>>'impossibility' of klama noda is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
>>
>>
>
>I want to assert that {zo'e} is never correct for {noda}.
>
>
Then you're making the strong claim that "zero thingies" is NEVER, EVER
implied in the context of any discussion.
--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.