xo'e and noda

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

There is a significant different between these two words/concepts, based on
the logical foundation of the language.  (Regardless of which place of
zbasu you are trying to eliminate - which I think we need to agree on since
the error is causing confusion - I will presume the "maker" place, which is x1,
since that is what caused the original confusion).

xo'e zbasu

claims that something is made, from some material, i.e.

xo'e zbasu zo'e zo'e

but that there was no maker involved, and that the concept of maker is
not relevant to the claim of made-ness/made-from-ness.  This brings to
mind the concept of things coming together on their own and assembling
into "da" on their own, spontaneously.  It thus differs somewhat from
"pagbu" x1 is a part component of x2 in that it talks about the process
by which the components became a part of the whole.  By comparison, the
components of something may be something other than the materials out of
which it was made, if there has been any changes in composition since
the 'making'.  A perhaps better equivalent to maker-less "zbasu" is
"krasi", which presumes no agent ("cfari" might be seen as a source-less
zbasu, i.e., with xo'e in x3).

noda zbasu zo'e zo'e
"nothing" made zo'e-1 out of zo'e-2

must be exported to the prenex for logical analysis:

noda zo'u di zbasu zo'e zo'e
For no x1: x1 made zo'e-1 from zo'e-2

which transforms by the rules of negation (someone correct me if I'm doing
this manipulation incorrectly, but even if I am, the effect is something
like what I'm saying).

naku roda zo'u da zbasu zo'e zo'e
It is false for all possible x1, that x1 made zo'e-1 from zo'e-2

from whence the negation may be reinserted in the sentence as:
roda zo'u da na zbasu zo'e zo'e
for all x1, it is false that x1 made zo'e-1 from zo'e-2

This is a negative claim - a denial that something made zo'e-1 from
zo'e-2.  It does not claim made-ness or made-from-ness for the two zo'e
values because there remains that essential negation in the logic.
Indeed, it denies that "zbasu" is a relationship that holds.

xo'e zbasu claims that there is indeed a relationship of resulting
construct and source material, but that in spite of this, that the third
element that one would expect, the maker, has no meaningful value.

If one wants an example where xo'e might have usefulness, teleportation
might be seen as "klama fo xo'e".

Addendum.  I do not agree with And, either, that xo'e merely means that
you aren't sure what goes in the place. xo'e >denies< that there is a
value that holds/is relevant.  The already accepted word "zo'e" says
that there is a value for this place, but that it is either irrelevant
or implicitly understood from the context, which is what usually is the
case when you omit a place.  Thus, per his example, when you state a
predicate with an implicit "standards" place, like "xamgu" (good), you
may not know what to put in the standards place, but it is part of the
essential meaning of "good" that there is some standard of "good" vs.
"bad".  The usual value for this place is either your own personal
standard of the moment or some presumed absolute and universal standard
of "good" (usually "God's standard", for those of a religious bent, or
"the good of the universe" or "of mankind" for some ethicists), and
context usually indicates which of these applies.  But to DENY that
there is a standard of what constitutes "good" - well, I have to admit
that I'm not sure what that means.  The existence of such a standard is
part of the definition of "xamgu", or of "good" for that matter.
Removing the standard place gives a new concept, in this case one which
I cannot grasp.


                                                     lojbab