On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:06 AM, paul_faehrbrorn
<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 different bridi
> > "se cupra zi'o", doesn't it? Is that grammatically, pragmatically
> > possible? What does it mean?
>
> 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 correct, if unlikely, dialogue
involving a speaker who is inclined to mistake a lidless bottle for a
lo botpi?
Well... {.i zi'o} does not deny the existence of the lid... the response confers almost no information except that {lo da'i botpi cu vasru sema'e} (that the supposed bottle is a container made of some material).
> No, although a) does imply c) (but not vice versa). There 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 expressed as {go'i ji'una'i}. (See
http://dag.github.com/cll/15/10/ )
In general, {na'i} is a less informative response than other negations, since it doesn't even assert the falseness of the statement, merely something wrong with the statement 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 processes by
> which the world was created, but there may or may not have been a creator)
Because generally "zi'o broda" does not necessarily entail "na broda"?
> 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 some place
> (probably the first) of {cevni}, while using {noi} you're providing
> additional information that the world is god (or, less likely, that the
> world is god's domain, since you didn't specify with {ke'a}).
Yes, I meant the additional information that everything which is world
is god (but not necessarily the other way round). So, I think "noi" is
what I want.
--