Re: Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives

["Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting)" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>]

--- In lojban@egroups.com, "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:
> la aulun cusku di'e
> 
> >.i le botpi be lo xunre vanju se pu spofu
> 
> {se} goes after the tense, but in this case you don't
> want {se}, right?

Right, I added the /se/ in a last erroneous impulse while posting.
Yet, is it real economical to have two gismus for "break/broken" 
(porpi/spofu)?!
> 
> Also, that means that the bottle was broken in the past
> (maybe by now it has been fixed). Do you mean that, or do
> you mean that it is now broken {ca spofu}, or that it
> broke in the past {pu porpi}?
> 
> >.i .oi mi na ba pinxe le
> >selpofbo'i
> 
> That is fine. But don't tell me that {le na ba se pinxe
> be do cu se botpi}, which would be confusing, even though
> you could weasel out of it by talking of potentialities.

:-) Exactly, what I wanted to express, is that the (former!) contents
of the bottle, once broken, is spoilt and can no longer be 
cherished.

.aulun.