Re: TECH: more thoughts on zi'o

[Richard Kennaway <jrk@SYS.UEA.AC.UK>]

zi'o is a place-filler used to indicate that there is nothing in that
place.  I.e. not that syntactically that argument has not been expressed,
which is what zo'e means, but that semantically, there is nothing in the
real world taking that role in the meaning of the predicate.

This is prima facie logically problematic.  P(a,b,c,d,zi'o) cannot be taken
to mean "there is no e such that P(a,b,c,d,e)", since this statement does
not express the positive relationship that people are trying to get when
zi'o-ing the destination place of klama.  If a relation like that which
"klama" names is taken to be an atomic concept, that either holds between a
tuple of things -- including a destination -- or does not, then zi'o makes
no sense.

(I'm sure the above isn't saying anything that hasn't been said already,
but I haven't seen any convincing counterargument.)

For zi'o to mean anything like what it is intended to mean, we must
consider the relationship denoted by a brivla to have some sort of internal
structure, to be made up of various components in some way.  Only then can
omitting the destination place of klama leave some sort of relationship
among the remaining arguments other than the mere denial that they are
related by klama to any destination.  What that relationship is would have
to be part of the definition of each gismu, covering every way of zi'o-ing
a subset of the places, or at least every meaningful way.  But which ways
are meaningful?  How does one set about deciding whether it is meaningful
to zi'o, say, the first place of klama?  Or all five?

It seems to me that if a place can be sensibly zi'o-ed, it doesn't belong
in the definition at all.

--                                  ____
Richard Kennaway                  __\_ /    School of Information Systems
Internet:  jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk      \  X/     University of East Anglia
uucp:  ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk    \/       Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.