From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Aug 03 06:23:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21977 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2000 13:23:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Aug 2000 13:23:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.187) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2000 13:23:44 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 06:05:25 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 13:05:25 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2000 13:05:25.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D5DD860:01BFFD4B] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pier cusku di'e >Think of {botpi} as "contain(er)". A container is still a container when it >is >not containing anything, just as I am still a programmer when I am not >programming. Of course, but you are not programming when you are not programming and a container is not containing when it is not containing. So saying {ta ca ca'a botpi} when ta is not containing is wrong. >So I can say of the empty water bottle, {ta botpi lo djacu .ijenai >ta ca botpi lo djacu}. Yes, assuming you mean an implied {ka'e} and not {ca'a}. By the same logic, you can also say {mi patfu} when you don't have any children, and you can say {ta se botpi} of many things that are not bottled. I prefer not to make such confusing claims. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com