WikiDiscuss

Posted by xod on Mon 08 of Nov, 2004 23:21 GMT posts: 143

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>--- xod:
>
>
>>I seem to remember holding a discussion here about a month ago, on
>>whether or not zero should be singled out for special treatment.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, though it was never clear what you meant by special treatment.
>
>When {no da broda} is true, i.e. when there is no thing x such that
>x brodas, zo'e cannot refer to a thing that brodas, because there
>aren't any. That seems clear enough.
>
>{zo'e} is not a replacement for words. {zo'e} refers to things.
>
>

zo'e/ (KOhA7)/

• unspecif it*

pro-sumti: an elliptical/unspecified value; has some value which makes
bridi true

So I guess if zero is the number of items that make the bridi true, then
it refers to the empty set. The definition suggests that zo'e can
represent a full expression that belongs in a tergi'u, beyond a simple
sumti.

--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."