* Thursday, 2011-12-01 at 08:03 -0800 - Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 10:32:01AM -0500, Martin Bays wrote:
> > * Wednesday, 2011-11-30 at 20:16 -0800 - Robin Lee Powell
> > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 02:56:12PM -0500, Martin Bays wrote:
> > > > * Wednesday, 2011-11-30 at 09:36 -0800 - Robin Lee Powell
> > > > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > This means the *only* way to talk about people wearing
> > > > > clothing is with {dasni}.
> > > > >
> > > > > WTF is the point of having place structures if I can't say
> > > > > {mi te pastu}?
> > > >
> > > > Because then something would pastu only when it was being
> > > > worn.
> > >
> > > And botpi must contain something, as must kabri.
> >
> > The difference is that always do contain something, even if only
> > air or empty space, but being worn isn't intrinsic to the physical
> > form of a pastu.
>
> That wanders into gluteality (i.e. being an ass); if someone says
> {ti botpi} and I say {ti botpi ma}, and they say {ti botpi [how the
> hell do you say "vacuum"?]}
{zilca'u}?
> or {ti botpi lo canlu}, I'm going to be pretty annoyed.
I don't think it's gluteal. With {vasru} it clearly would be, but it
often isn't important to a nu kabri that the se kabri be interesting.
> OTOH, botpi says "container *for* x2", so who the hell knows what
> *that* means? :P kabri doesn't have that problem, though.
>
> > (There's also the question of whether the x2 of botpi ("for x2")
> > is actually meant to imply vasru, or whether it should be taken to
> > be analagous to taxfu's x2)
>
> Oh, you noticed that too. Yeah, I can't tell. There's already a
> sort-of comment about this on the gismu issues page, but I've
> updated it a bit.
>
> > > I'm not seeing the problem.
> >
> > I suppose that depends on whether you're willing e.g. to accept
> > {lo ka'e broda} as a likely interpretation of {lo broda}?
>
> If it was up to me, I'd define certain places as being ka'e-able:
> that is, "this place is normally filled by X [where in the case of
> botpi X would be "what the bottle currently contains"], but even if
> there is no current or obvious X, the capability is sufficient for
> the semantics of this word; zi'o should only be used if the
> capability has been lost".
My reaction to that has to be 'yuck', but it may best fit current usage.
And I note that some gimste definitions seem to support it - e.g.
kicne kic ki'e cushion
x1 cushions x2 with material x3;
x1 is a cushion/pillow/pad [for x2] of padding material x3
Martin
Attachment:
pgpZ3lhD6tUOS.pgp
Description: PGP signature