Re: TECH: experimental cmavo "xo'e"

[Mr Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> >Date:         Thu, 6 May 1993 15:39:01 -0700
> >From: hedgehog%SCRIPPS.EDU@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
> >X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
>
> >>>Well, actually, my copy of the gimste has
> >>
> >>>zbasu     zba      make
> >>>x1 makes/assembles/builds/manufactures/creates x2 out of materials x3
> >>
> >>>in which case this particular one's denying the existence of any
> >>>material out of which it is made, which is a bit easier to comprehend.
> >>
> >>Well, isn't that just {zbasu fi noda}?  There *is* a difference between
> >>{xo'e} and {noda}, but defining it is not easy.
> >>
> >>
> >>%mark
>
> >Isn't the difference between "zbasu fi noda" and "zbasu fi xo'e" that the
> >first recognizes that x1 makes x2 from nothing (but it *could* have been
> >made from something) and the second says that x1 makes x2 *period*?  "zabsu
> >fi zo'e" says that x1 makes x2 from something-or-other.
>
> But what does "x1 makes x2 period" mean?  Does it mean you're not saying
> anything about the existence or non-existence of the materials?  That's {fi
> zo'e}, since {zo'e} can be {noda}.  Does it mean there are no such
> materials?  That's {fi noda}.  {xo'e} does seem to have a meaning in some
> cases, distinct from {noda} or {zo'e}, but apparently not in this case.  I
> am not sure how this can be defined in general.
>
> %mark

I think this difference between _zo'e_ and _xo'e_ is (& John Cowan
may correct me on this, for I've not read the negation paper) that
if _zo'e_ in fact refers to 'noda' then the predication is negated,
whereas if _xo'e_ "refers to 'noda'" the predication is altered in
meaning, but not negated. For example, if the source sumti of
_cliva_ were noda, I suppose there'd be no leaving - nothing
happened, whereas if the source sumti of _cliva_ were _xo'e_,
_cliva_ could refer to motion that may have eternally been in
existence (& therefore have no source).

I must say I find it highly unsatisfactory that _zo'e_ can mean
'noda' if am right about the negation (though I'm probably
wrong). It means that zo'e-filled (and also empty?) sumti
slots can refer to noda & therefore it is unclear whether
the predication is positive or negative. I must have gone
wrong somewhere in my reasoning here - I can't believe
the semantics really works like this!

----
And