* Thursday, 2011-12-01 at 09:16 -0800 - Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:14:25PM -0500, Martin Bays wrote:
> > * 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 a.t 08:03 -0800 - Robin Lee Powell
> > > > <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>:
> > > > > 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.
>
> My point was that *particular places* of *particular gismu* would be
> marked with this behaviour.
OK. I stand by my 'yuck', though!
Martin
Attachment:
pgpKRqhJT4nUa.pgp
Description: PGP signature