From pycyn@aol.com Sat Aug 19 10:15:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23802 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2000 17:15:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Aug 2000 17:15:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.10) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2000 17:15:24 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id a.48.9d7251a (3931) for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <48.9d7251a.26d01a9f@aol.com> Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:15:11 EDT Subject: RE: the zi'o joke To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 3958 Although I do not agree with them, I take it that the following are the arguments for understanding {botpi zi'o} as "empty bottle" 1. We do want to say this and all the straightforward ways of so doing end up denying that the thing is a botpi at all, however bottly it may be. Further, the grammar of {zi'o} looks like that of {zo'e}, so we expect it to be some kind of pronoun, not a function-modifier like {se}. 2. {botpi zi'o} clearly covers thing just like botpi but for content, as well as things that are fully botpi. If we only want to ignore the content of fully botpi items, we can do so by other means: omission, {zo'e}, {da} and so on. So, Griceanly, the fact that we use {zi'o} rather than other -- including simpler -- means to do this implies that the others would not work, i.e., that this almost-botpi does not have a content. That is, although {botpi zi'o} does not mean "empty bottle," the fact that we USE {botpi zi'o} implies that we mean to convey the information that the bottle is empty. As to 2, it is close to compelling, except that we -- if we are careful -- would use {botpi zi'o} in any case where we were not sure that the bottle had content, not only when we were sure (or pretty sure or ....) that it was empty. As to 1b, the grammar is more or less required here, since it is essential to the way it modifies the function that the affected sumti place be indicated. To do this as it is in compounds, by {zi'o} plus a place number, requires a further complication of the grammar ({zi'o} is then probably a unique with a special rule sticking it into the place of {se} or whatever -- with a check that it has a legitimate number after it?) for a minor point. 1a sounds like a pretty good idea, but it requires a change in the baseline, and this is hardly a crisis enough to call for that.