xo'e & proposal for new cmavo "_xe'o_"

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

From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Subject: xo'e and noda

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

But, crucially, any sort of motion could be seen as "klama fo xo'e",
whereas teleportation could not be seen as "klama fo zo'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.

This misrepresents my position, I think.

From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject: TECH: experimental cmavo "xo'e"

> This, of course,
> is the motivation for {xo'e} in the first place, to enable such selbri as
> {cliva} (and {litru}) and {finti} to be created from "fuller" ones like
> {klama} and {zbasu}.  The need was for a general way to do this on the fly,
> since you can't make up gismu in mid-discussion.

My understanding is in accordance with Mark's rather than Lojbab's. That is,
_cliva_ is equivalent to _klama_ with _xo'e_ as the goal sumti. Note that
there can be a destination for _cliva_, but there needn't be, whereas
with _klama_ there must be a destination, even if it's not relevant,
or unknown, and generally zo'e-like.


> 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.

I think it is perfectly possible to think of goodness and badness being
absolute properties in the way being male, female, human or feline are.
While we might well want to have a concept of goodness relative to
some standard, we might equally well not care whether the goodness is
absolute or relative to some standard. So the question is: is it better
to abolish the by-standard place, and use a BAI (or whatever) when
the standard is relevant, or is it better to keep the by-standard
and use _xo'e_ whenever there is the possibility that there may be
no standard.

> I believe that zo'e carries existential import - i.e., I cannot see that
> you can use zo'e, with it possibly standing for "noda".  Nor can I see that
> a claim that you are "tavla"ing can be true if there is no audience.  (You
> might be bacru-ing (uttering), or ciska-ing (writing), or otherwise
> expressing yourself, but tavla is as much dependent on there being a
> talked-to, a subject, and a language, as it is on there being a talker.

You could be tavlaing and imagining that there is an audience, but be
mistaken. I could describe this as tavla, but with some sort of local
negator in the audience sumti. If I wanted to say that what you
were doing was to all intents & purposes tavlaing, except that there
was no audience, _xo'e_ would not be adequate, since _xo'e_ does
not exclude _zo'e_.

This suggests a need for an extra cmavo in the xo'e/zo'e domain; I'll
call it _xe'o_ for the moment:

  zo'e = something
  xe'o = nothing (but doesn't negate bridi)
  xo'e = zo'e or xe'o

The use of _xe'o_ and of _xo'e_ (because it can mean "xe'o") is
semantically equivalent to using a tanru: it changes the meaning
of a bridi in a not wholly predictable way.

> You seem to have used the same reasoning I just did in responding to
> someone else, that "zo'e" has existential import and cannot stand for
> "noda", or for "xo'e" for that matter.

From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject: TECH: experimental cmavo "xo'e"

> Yeah, I think you're right.  I take it back, what I said about {zo'e}
> possibly meaning {noda}.  But {xo'e} doesn't mean {noda} either!

And note that whereas _noda_ would negate the bridi, _xe'o_ wouldn't.

So, I suggest the adoption of two cmavo, '_xo'e_' and '_xe'o_', to
be kept carefully distinct. I note that Nick seems to have been
using _xo'e_ in the sense I propose, but much of the discussion of
it has really been of '_xe'o_'.

-----
And