GLI zo/bacru

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Lojbab:
> >I predict that if this is left to ordinary usage, words like
> >"bacru" and "zo" (and many many others) will become homonymous.
>
> I think that as you seem to be defining the term, "zo" is alrteady
> homonymous in that it has a broader meaning than, "lo".  All it does is
> quote a single word and use that quote as a sumti.  It does not say what the
> significance of that single word is in the predication for which it is a
> sumti.  It need not be a real Lojban word - merely a valid Lojban
 morphological
> word form.  This leaves lots of semantic slop.  So be it.

It doesn't just "quote" a single word. "quotation" implies that
it is a copy of some other utterance. Anyway, we agree it is
homonymous. Or the definition of zo is disjunctive.

> I think that if bacru seems too vague, people will resolve it by making two
> lujvo that distinguish between whatever nuances you are implying (which I
> won't pretend to understand).

I agree. However, it is quite likely that bacru will not seem too
vague, yet still be homonymous (or disjunctively defined: it
could mean "x1 either utters sound x2 or utters an instance of
text-type x2", in which case lo`i se bacru would contain sounds
and text-types).

--And