From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Jun 26 17:06:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3753 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 00:06:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2000 00:06:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.29) by mta3 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 00:06:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 44881 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jun 2000 00:06:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000627000640.44880.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.153.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:06:40 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.153.226] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] As Kunsunlundz said... [was RE: RECORD:containers] Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:06:40 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >This seems a little >odd, since when I say {ta botpi} I am probably NOT thinking of them worlds >over there and then but of the bottle I have in my hand here and now, that >is >the untensed form is contextually focused to the present. I agree with this. The "potential botpi", or "botpi containing air" are clearly cop-outs to kid ourselves that we are using the language properly, because that is not what we have in mind when we use {botpi} for English "bottle". English "bottle" corresponds much more closely to the single argument function Bottle(x) than to the two valued BottleContaining(x,y), which is what {botpi} is. Presumably a fluent Lojban speaker would not be influenced by the English keyword and would not tend to associate an empty bottle with the predicate {botpi} unless for some reason considering potential contents makes sense in that context. But we're not there yet. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com