From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Aug 02 16:30:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26046 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2000 23:30:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Aug 2000 23:30:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.195) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2000 23:30:15 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 16:30:15 -0700 Received: from 200.42.119.35 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.119.35] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 23:30:15 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2000 23:30:15.0036 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C519BC0:01BFFCD9] From: "Jorge Llambias" la jimc cusku di'e >On the word "potential", my opinion is that it's still a vessel or bottle >when it's evacuated, so the referent of "its contents" is the empty set. There is no question that an empty bottle is still a bottle in English. But in Lojban I don't think we can say that it still actually botpies when it doesn't botpi anything. You wouldn't say in English that the bottle contents are still bottle contents when outside of the bottle, at least not for long. Would you say that {se botpi} are still {se botpi}, perhaps being the contents of the empty set? co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com