From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jul 29 16:53:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21541 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2000 23:53:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Jul 2000 23:53:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r11.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.65) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jul 2000 23:53:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.12.) id a.43.8352994 (3955) for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <43.8352994.26b4c88e@aol.com> Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:53:50 EDT Subject: re: the zi'o joke To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com taral: <. However, that same bottle may be a botpi > zi'o (or botpi zi'o fo zi'o, since it probably doesn't have a cap either). Interesting... would the "ellipsis" of zo'e apply to a missing "zi'o"? e.g. saying "botpi zi'o" when you mean "botpi zi'o fo zi'o"? (Since a bottle may or may not have a lid...)>> No, you can't elide the "zi'o" any more than you can the "se" and expect things to come out right. Although, as thing are now, of course, the unmarked places are effectively equivalent to "zo'e" anyhow. But in the system (oops! I've just noticed that I am confusing two states of the language here -- that is not marking which one I am talking about) that I took to underlie maikl's joke (I'm not sure any more that it did -- or, indeed, that he was joking), things might get into a class with a lot of even though they noworld had content of bottle nor cap to bottle, but were bottlous in some other way (the "duck" definition say).