From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Jun 15 14:50:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12328 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2000 21:50:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jun 2000 21:50:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2000 21:50:28 -0000 Received: from bob (99.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.99]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5FLoQL41442; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:50:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from lojbab@lojban.org) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000615174407.00b76340@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:51:17 -0400 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] containers Cc: sklyanin@amsta.leeds.ac.uk (Evgueni Sklyanin) In-Reply-To: <200006151515.QAA21013@navier.leeds.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 04:15 PM 06/15/2000 +0100, E Sklyanin wrote: >There is a group of gismu describing various containers. The definition of >such gismu usually has a place (x2, sometimes x3) for the contents. >In the list of English definitions the word "contents" is used with three >prepositions: for/of/with: > >"for contents": >botpi (bottle), dacru (drower), lante (can), patxu (pot), tansi (pan), >tanxe (box). > >"of contents": >baktu (bucket), palne (tray) > >"with contents": >dakli (sack), lanku (basket) > >unique wording: >kabri (cup) "containing contents" >palta (plate) - no place for contents > >I wonder if this difference in wording (for/of/with/containig) is deliberate >and serves to convey different meanings. Are we speaking in case of bottle >(botpi) only of the bottle itself, and of only potential contents? How do we >say then "a bottle of wine"? > >Respectively, when we use "bucket" (baktu) are we speaking about an amount of >water contained in a bucket? How can we then refer to an empty bucket? > >I would prefer to have a uniform place structure for all kinds of containers. >It is rather difficult to memorize the distibution of "for/of/with". The preposition does not matter. It was my sloppiness in wording. The only intent was that, if there was a contents associated with the container, that the contents could be specified in the x2 or x3 place, and given the nature of containers, "nothing" (or "air" for a pedant) is a legitimate value for the contents, so that such a place was always justified. I am not sure that a plate necessarily needs to be considered as a container, hence did not include a contents place. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org