From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Jun 11 19:11:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 12 Jun 2001 02:11:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 67735 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 02:11:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Jun 2001 02:11:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.38) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 02:11:51 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 19:11:50 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.33 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:11:50 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.33] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: zi'o and modals Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:11:50 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2001 02:11:50.0994 (UTC) FILETIME=[0ADB2320:01C0F2E5] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7837 la ritcrd cusku di'e >mi viska le botpi be fo noda >(I see a bottle with unspecified contents, material, and no cap) {lo botpi be fo noda} is no more a botpi than {lo patfu be no da} is a patfu. That's why {botpi} does not mean the same as English "bottle". English "bottle" would be a one place predicate, but {botpi} is a (very messy) four-place relationship. {ko'a patfu no da} means the same as {ko'a na patfu da}. You would not call ko'a a patfu in that case. {ko'a botpi fo no da} means {ko'a na botpi fo da}. So we should not call ko'a a botpi if it doesn't botpi. >I chose to say outright there is no cap, but you could >put that in {zo'e}'s corner as well depending on how important it is to >this sentence. If there is no cap, there is no botpi relationship, so there is no botpi, no se botpi and no te botpi either. For the relationship to hold there have to be four things, whether they are important or not. >Why on earth is a {zi'o} version different or better? Because {botpi fo zi'o} is a new relationship, that relates only three objects. If those three are present then you do have lo botpi be fo zi'o, lo se botpi be fo zi'o and lo te botpi be fo zi'o. >Apparently, a >bottle filled with soda and topped with a shiny propeller cap can be >reduced to the {zi'o} version without becoming false. Yes, you can talk about a relationship that exists between the other two objects. Not the botpi relationship, one with only two arguments. >I think I finally understand that {zi'o} means: > ``this place could or could not have a truthful value, but I'm not >going to make an assertion about that either way'' More or less, yes. >Why let {zi'o} and {zo'e} overlap this way? If {zo'e} claims there is a >truthful value, {zi'o} should be saying that there is no truthful >value. That is a clear distinction, without ambiguity. Then by using {botpi be fo zi'o} you would be talking about the 4-way realtionship botpi, not about the new 3-way one. >Then the challenge is coming up for useful way to use {zi'o}, since the >sentences come out kind of zen-like: zi'o is in my list of "thou shalt not use", did I mention that already? :) >mi viska le botpi be zi'o bei le blaci bei zi'o >(I see a glass bottle which cannot contain anything--including >nothing!--and which is inherently capless) { maybe it's solid glass >that's bottle-shaped? }. Or maybe it's a Klein bottle. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.