From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Jul 09 18:08:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14274 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 01:08:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 01:08:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 01:08:42 -0000 Received: from m3-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com ([62.252.12.3] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 13BRul-0003CD-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:59:16 +0100 To: Subject: RE: zi'o & otpi Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:08:34 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" John: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, And Rosta wrote: > > > le se gerku be zi'o, for a dog breed > > that exists independently of actual dogs. > > 1) "gerku" relates not only actual dogs with actual dog breeds, but > allows the relation of potential dogs and/or potential dog breeds as well. > Does it even make sense to talk about a dog breed which neither is, > nor could possibly be, instantiated in any conceivable dogs? What on earth > would make it a *dog* breed, then? I don't feel I have a good understanding of the nature of potentiality. All the same, can one not have an actual dog breed that is instantiated by no actual dog? > 2) In any event, this is not the actual function of "zi'o". Whatever is > a "se gerku" (St. Bernards, e.g.) is also a "se gerku be zi'o", though > the converse might or might not be true. This can be easily seen > by moving up a level of abstraction to properties/relationships: > > lo ka ce'u ciblu ce'u > the relationship between blood and the organism that has it > > lo ka ce'u ciblu zo'e > the property of being the blood of some organism (known from context) > > lo ka zo'e ciblu ce'u > the property of being the organism from which the blood (known in > context) comes > > lo ka ce'u ciblu zi'o > the property of being blood Blood that comes from no organism - e.g. blood of a unique variety that is manufactured by machine - would be lo ciblu be zi'o. Not everything that is ciblu be zi'o is cible be da. This is why zi'o is worth having. > lo ka zi'o ciblu ce'u > the property of having blood > > lo du'u zo'e ciblu zo'e > the claim that some blood (context) is from some organism (context) > > > The language > > will either be defined by usage, in which case its grammar will > > be relatively vague and indeterminate, or it will be defined by > > formal documentation, in which case usage will largely be > > irrelevant. > > The (foreseen) role of "usage" in Lojbanistan is rather > different. Lojban provides lots of ways to say the same things > ("same" by the formal documentation). Usage is expected to > accept some of these as normal, treat others as marked (i.e. > as representing some distinction not made by the formal doco), > and reject others as farfetched or unintelligible (Early Andese > dialect). > > > So better than zi'oing off unwanted places, or pretending they're > > not there, is to use some alternative brivla. > > Which is why "zi'o" has a rafsi, so that such brivla can > be constructed. Yes, but for every place you want to zi'o off you have to add 2 syllables, one for the rafsi of zi'o and one for the rafsi of a SE. Far too cumbersome, and it draws inappropriate attention to the zi'oing. > > So, for example, if you want a word for > > "bottle such that something actually is a bottle even when > > it's empty", then you could use "otpi" (with, in lujvo, the > > same rafsi as "botpi"). > > Cool idea, and even formalizable, because we can say that "otpi" > is a short synonym for the formally defined "relzilbotpi". > (Or is it "zilrelbotpi"? Can't find the explanation in the Red Book.) --And.