From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Aug 03 20:33:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21005 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2000 03:33:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Aug 2000 03:33:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.151) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2000 03:33:33 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:33:33 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.56 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.56] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 03:33:32 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2000 03:33:33.0223 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3EDEB70:01BFFDC4] From: "Jorge Llambias" la jimc cusku di'e >"Add a can of (our product) to your car's gasoline and /it/ will do wonders >for your engine." "It" was formerly in the can, but while it's doing >wonders for your engine, which takes several days, it's outside. When it is true that it will do wonders, it is still in the can, so there is no problem there. What is more of a problem is using {lo se botpi} for "a bottleful", because there is nothing to indicate that it must fill a bottle, only that it be in one. In >English we play fast and loose with tenses. A pedant would say: "...and >the former can contents will do wonders..." But wouldn't the pedant be wrong? It is the current contents that will do wonders, even if they will no longer be contained by the can while doing the wonders. "Will" refers to "do wonders", not to the description of the object. That's certainly how I understand it in Lojban, and also I'm quite sure in English. But I'm willing, at least in >this context, to leave off "former" and accept the substance as being a >"canful" or "contents of a vessel" even though it's long gone from its >container. I don't have a problem with {le se botpi} as a description of an object that is not now contained in a bottle. What I don't like is saying {ta se botpi} of an object that is not now contained in a bottle. It is possible, and with enough context it might be all right, but in general it's at least confusing. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com