Re: [lojban] RE: zi'o and modals

[Richard Todd <richardt@flash.net>]

Jorge Llambias wrote:
> 
> la lojbab cusku di'e
> 
> >I don't see why "botpi fo noda" doesn't work.
> 
> A toy airplane, a soccer football and a banana are all instances
> of {lo botpi be fo noda}, they are all members of {lo'i botpi be
> fo no da}. (That is not what we usually mean by "a bottle without
> a cap" in English.)

I agree; this approach makes sense to me.  But what about the idea
this...

Although the sentence itself carries no more meaning than what you're
saying, the fact that the speaker chose {botpi} instead of {mlatu} is
bound to carry some sort of meta-meaning.

Especially if the speaker goes to the trouble to fill the other places:

ti botpi le djacu le slasi noda

I agree that it isn't false to refer to banana with this sentence. 
However, if you heard someone say this to you, wouldn't you assume that
it was something having to do with the concepts {botpi} {djacu} and
{slasi}.  Otherwise, why would the speaker have said them?  Further,
wouldn't your first guess be that the breaking point of the relationship
involves the cap?  Otherwise, why would the speaker choose {fo noda},
when {noda} in any position has a similar effect?  

What do you think?  Should this enter into the interpretation?  I'd
prefer to think not, but it may go against basic human nature.  (In
other words, the speakers choice of words often carries as much
information as the words themselves, IMO).

Richard