RE: zi'o & otpi

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

John:
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, And Rosta wrote:
> 
> > le se gerku be zi'o, for a dog breed
> > that exists independently of actual dogs.
> 
> 1) "gerku" relates not only actual dogs with actual dog breeds, but
> allows the relation of potential dogs and/or potential dog breeds as well.
> Does it even make sense to talk about a dog breed which neither is,
> nor could possibly be, instantiated in any conceivable dogs?  What on earth
> would make it a *dog* breed, then?

I don't feel I have a good understanding of the nature of potentiality.

All the same, can one not have an actual dog breed that is instantiated by
no actual dog?

> 2) In any event, this is not the actual function of "zi'o".  Whatever is
> a "se gerku" (St. Bernards, e.g.) is also a "se gerku be zi'o", though
> the converse might or might not be true.  This can be easily seen
> by moving up a level of abstraction to properties/relationships:
> 
> 	lo ka ce'u ciblu ce'u
> 	the relationship between blood and the organism that has it
> 
> 	lo ka ce'u ciblu zo'e
> 	the property of being the blood of some organism (known from context)
> 
> 	lo ka zo'e ciblu ce'u
> 	the property of being the organism from which the blood (known in
> 		context) comes
> 
> 	lo ka ce'u ciblu zi'o
> 	the property of being blood

Blood that comes from no organism - e.g. blood of a unique variety that is
manufactured by machine - would be lo ciblu be zi'o. Not everything that
is ciblu be zi'o is cible be da. This is why zi'o is worth having.

> 	lo ka zi'o ciblu ce'u
> 	the property of having blood
> 
> 	lo du'u zo'e ciblu zo'e
> 	the claim that some blood (context) is from some organism (context)
> 
> > The language
> > will either be defined by usage, in which case its grammar will
> > be relatively vague and indeterminate, or it will be defined by
> > formal documentation, in which case usage will largely be 
> > irrelevant.
> 
> The (foreseen) role of "usage" in Lojbanistan is rather
> different.  Lojban provides lots of ways to say the same things
> ("same" by the formal documentation).  Usage is expected to
> accept some of these as normal, treat others as marked (i.e.
> as representing some distinction not made by the formal doco),
> and reject others as farfetched or unintelligible (Early Andese
> dialect).
> 
> > So better than zi'oing off unwanted places, or pretending they're
> > not there, is to use some alternative brivla.
> 
> Which is why "zi'o" has a rafsi, so that such brivla can
> be constructed.

Yes, but for every place you want to zi'o off you have to add 2 syllables,
one for the rafsi of zi'o and one for the rafsi of a SE. Far too cumbersome,
and it draws inappropriate attention to the zi'oing.

> > So, for example, if you want a word for
> > "bottle such that something actually is a bottle even when
> > it's empty", then you could use "otpi" (with, in lujvo, the 
> > same rafsi as "botpi").
> 
> Cool idea, and even formalizable, because we can say that "otpi"
> is a short synonym for the formally defined "relzilbotpi".
> (Or is it "zilrelbotpi"?  Can't find the explanation in the Red Book.)

--And.