Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 11:53:13 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: Careful with noi!
Message-ID: <8nogr9+ujbk@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.95.1000820001014.2542A-100000@locke.ccil.org>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
Content-Length: 1435
Lines: 38

--- In lojban@egroups.com, John Cowan <cowan@c...> wrote:

> In other words, we have performed the operation which in the
relational
> calculus is called "projection": we have reduced a three-place
> relationship to a two-place one, or whatever.

With the funny result that /zi'o/ extinguishes a place while/by
sitting in it ;)

If I understand this right, it's a way of "creating" new brivla by
cutting off one or more places for relationships to "dock on".  It 
would be marvellous having a method to create new places too ... ;)
So, e.g. a /botpi zi'o/ doesn't mean at all that it contains nothing,
but only that the new word does not consider the container 
property *grammatically*. (Just as if talking about /ninmu/ without
having structural means to state to how many children 
they've given birth, or about /cinfo/ without a place for their
intestine's length.) On the other hand, zi'oing out a place is *
obvious* - hence the reader/listener realizes that this was done
*intentionally*! So, why e.g. using /botpi zi'o/ instead of just /
botpi/ or /botpi zo'e .../ *if there is no intention to express that
it isn't "bottling" anything* (and not even potentially)?!

> > What use of zi'o should there be, if it didn't explicitely express
> > that the place respective is *empty* and not just irrelevant (and
> > hence 
> > unexpressed).
> 
> It expresses a different relation.

.i la'edi'u mo

ki'e mi'e .aulun.