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

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la ritcrd cusku di'e

> 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}.

Consider a more verb-like gismu:

  ti dunda le djacu noda

Would you assume that ti is a giver?

Of course if I hear the {ti botpi} sentence I will think they are
talking about a bottle, but I can't say whether it is the lojban
or the English key-word that suggests this. In any case, it would
be a bottle that doesn't botpi. If we take the place structure of
botpi seriously, then some bottles botpi and some bottles don't
botpi. English "bottle" is a more general term than Lojban "botpi".

> 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?

It doesn't really have the same effect. Your sentence is compatible,
for example, with:

ti botpi le vanju le blaci le gacri

This one is not compatible with:

ti botpi noda le blaci le gacri

So where you put noda matters.

We can have bottles without caps, but we can't have botpi without
ve botpi. In {ti dunda le djacu noda} the relationship breaks
because there is no receipient, but that doesn't mean that
we will say that ti is a dunda. In fact we will say that ti na dunda.
And similarly ti na botpi in the other case.

> What do you think?  Should this enter into the interpretation?  I'd
> prefer to think not, but it may go against basic human nature.

Of course, because the definition of botpi goes against basic
human nature. There is not much justification to blend the
container-contained and the container-cap relationships into
one, especially in a basic root. If botpi had no cap place, one
could create a lujvo such as {gairbotpi} for that more specific
relationship, but the way things are we either fight against the
"natural" interpretation, or we give up on trying to be logical.

> (In
> other words, the speakers choice of words often carries as much
> information as the words themselves, IMO).

I agree with that. I just want to insist that choosing "botpi"
is very different from choosing "bottle" when there is no cap.

mu's mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.