Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:43:40 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: Careful with noi!
Message-ID: <8nlksc+pc35@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <6f.9498e6f.26cd96ab@aol.com>
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: 2562
Lines: 66

--- In lojban@egroups.com, pycyn@a... wrote:
>> In a message dated 00-08-17 15:00:40 EDT, maikl writes:
>> 
>> perhaps my lojbanic point would be clearer if e.g. a gismu for
"cherry" 
>> had (say) an x3 place for its "stone" & in the song they used ZI'O
there
>> and the baseline of {zi'o} ...

> ... won't reach to that.  That baseline drops the {zi'o}d position
from the 
> definition of the term but does not guarantee that it is empty
({botpi zio} 
> means "bottle" but without reference to its content, not "bottle
without any 
> content").  The interesting question is whether something can be a
botpi zi'o 
> even if it noworld has a content -- the description seems to say
not but the 
> examples contain one that says yes.

That, now for me, really is the question: Does /zi'o/ "fill" a selbri
structure's place "with explicit emptiness" or does it strip off the
place 
itself, thus creating a new selbri with a different place structure?!
The "Woldemar Bible" (I gladly own myself now) seems ambiguous and
puzzling to me in this regard (p. 157/156):
a) "... when a bridi fills one of its places with 'zi'o', what is
really meant is that the selbri *has a place* which is
irrelevant(???) to the true 
relationship the speaker wishes to express..."
b) "Note : the use of 'zi'o' to block up, as it were, one place of
the selbri actually creates a new selbri with a different place
structure..."

John's first example is convincing (regarding the first
interpretation): loi jmive cu se zbasu zi'o loi selci
because I indeed want to express that there *is no maker* (i.e. the
maker-place has to be filled with a negative/zero..., but the place
itself is 
there anyway). And it is stressed that its contents is not just
unimportant like when using /zo'e/ instead.

Yet, the following examples don't seem convincing to me: zi'o zbasu
le dinji loi mudri (or: le dinji se zbasu zi'o loi mudri),  mi zbasu
zi'o loi 
mudri and mi zbasu le dinji zi'o (BTW, in the last sentence is a
typo! It erroneously reads: mi zbasu loi mudri zi'o)
Unlike in the cell-example (where infact is no maker, except maybe
nature or god), *there are* makers or materials although unexpressed: 
I build *something* (maybe a house/houses etc.) using wood, I make
the building (using some material unexpressed), hence why *not* using 
/zo'e/ in these cases?! mi zbasu zo'e loi mudri, mi zbasu le dinji
zo'e

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).

.aulun.