On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:06 AM, paul_fa= ehrbrorn <pa.fae@gmx.= de> wrote:

Thank you (both) for your answers.

On May 30, 8:33 pm, Michael Turniansky <mturnian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > b) looks like a normal "fill-in-the-sumti" answer to a = "ma"-question,
> > but does in fact turn the bridi "se cupra" into the dif= ferent bridi
> > "se cupra zi'o", doesn't it? Is that grammatica= lly, pragmatically
> > possible? What does it mean?
>
> =A0 It would mean a thing that is created but without a creating agent= .
> It's hard to imagine, which is why zi'o isn't often used ;= -)

So, "ti botpi fo ma" --- "i zi'o" is a correc= t, if unlikely, dialogue
involving a speaker who is inclined to mistake a lidless bottle for a
lo botpi?

Well... {.i zi'o} does no= t deny the existence of the lid... the response confers almost no informati= on except that {lo da'i botpi cu vasru sema'e} (that the supposed b= ottle is a container made of some material).
=A0

> =A0 =A0No, although a) does imply c) (but not vice versa). =A0There is=
> something wrong on a meta-level about you asking what created the
> world.

That something being my contrafactual presupposition of a world
creator/lo se cupra?

That might be better expresse= d as {go'i ji'una'i}. (See http://dag.github.com/cll/15/10/ )
In general, {na'i} i= s a less informative response than other negations, since it doesn't ev= en assert the falseness of the statement, merely something wrong with the s= tatement on the meta level.

On May 30, 8:13 pm, ".arpis." <rpglover64+jbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> b is a very non-informative answer, saying something like {lo te cupra= be lo
> munje cu zasti .iju lo cupra be lo munje cu zasti} (there was a proces= ses by
> which the world was created, but there may or may not have been a crea= tor)

Because generally "zi'o broda" does not necessarily ent= ail "na broda"?

Correct. In fact, {broda} ent= ails {zi'o broda}. http://da= g.github.com/cll/7/7/
=A0

> Also, I think for f, you mean {ri noi cevni}, unless you mean {ri poi = cevni
> fi ke'a} rather than {ri poi ke'a cevni}, and even so, it'= s confusing. Using
> {poi}, you're restricting your claim to only worlds the fit in som= e place
> (probably the first) of {cevni}, while using {noi} you're providin= g
> additional information that the world is god (or, less likely, that th= e
> world is god's domain, since you didn't specify with {ke'a= }).

Yes, I meant the additional information that everything which is worl= d
is god (but not necessarily the other way round). So, I think "noi&quo= t; is
what I want.

--

You received this message because = you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.=
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.