WikiDiscuss

pc:
> OK, if you want to, but that still seems to allow
> that {zi'o} is the sort of thing that refers but
> just doesn't happen to: are you happy with {zo i
> sinxa no da}?

Not particularly unhappy, but in the case of {zi'o},
there is more of a reason to think that it might refer,
because it is in a selma'o where most other members
usually do refer, so pointing out that it in particular
does not is pertinent. (Not that we are disagreeing on
anything substantial here.)

> > Anyway, if I were lojbanizing it, I would
> > rather
> > use something like {lo me da e lo no da}. Is it
> > really about zasti at all?
> >
> Yes, it seems to be, although it may take
> advantage of the second place of {zasti}, "under
> metaphysics."

Third place, actually. The second one is for the observer.
A charged word if there is one.

> "neant" appears to be a present active
> participle, "non-being," here as a noun,
> ambiguously (and herein the problem) a state or
> something in that state — both different from
> "nothing," in the sense of the lack of something.
> So, it really is {zasti}, not the denial of
> existential quantification, that is involved.

I'm not fully convinced, but I'll take your word
for it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail