* Thursday, 2011-12-01 at 09:00 -0800 - Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:54:55AM -0500, Martin Bays wrote:
> > * Thursday, 2011-12-01 at 08:03 -0800 - Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>:
> >
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Yes, that was *exactly* my point when I said:
>
> > > 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".
>
> As currently defined, a kabri is only a kabri if it contains
> something; "contains vacuum" or "contains air" are both dodging the
> question, IMO, especially the former. So I think we should
> canonicalize the whole "this place doesn't have to be interesting"
> thing you just said.
But if we go from "doesn't have to be interesting" to "doesn't have to
(ca'a) exist", then the place structure does much less to define the
meaning.
e.g. we wouldn't have the clear difference between {ko'a zukte ko'e} and
{ko'a gasnu ko'e} - we'd be left with just some fuzzy idea that in the
former, there *could* have been a purpose behind the action - which if
we stretch that 'could' far enough, is true of any nu gasnu.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpzmKfTvKeF4.pgp
Description: PGP signature