Re: TECH: experimental cmavo "xo'e"

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

> >Date:         Thu, 6 May 1993 15:56:20 BST
> >From: Iain Alexander
>  <I.Alexander.bra0125%OASIS.ICL.CO.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
> >X-To:         c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk
> >X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
>
> >>         zbasu fixo'e
> >> means
> >>         x1 is made/built/assembled of/from x2, but I am denying the
> >> existence, or at least the relevance, of any maker.
>
> >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
In the case of, say, _judri_:

    judri  x1 is address of x2 in system x3

putting xo'e in the x3 place means *not* that the address is not part
of a system, but that it is unspecified as to whether the address is
or isn't part of a system. If some address *isn't* part of a system,
but this information is trivial, yet you want to be entirely
truthful, it would here be appropriate to use _xo'e_: you don't
say it's not part of a system, but you avoid falsely asserting that
it *is* part of a system. So, _xo'e_ really ought to be used frequently:
each time one uses a brivla, for each sumti slot one should think
"do I really want to claim that this sumti exists?" & unless the
answer is yes, one should insert _xo'e_.

This is an annoying conclusion, & goes to show that subcategorized
sumti ought to be kept to the barest minimum, to avoid the need
for excessive xoheing. All those 'by standard' places could be
dumped, for example.

---
And.