From taral@taral.net Thu Aug 03 20:44:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9866 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2000 03:44:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Aug 2000 03:44:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.taral.net) (128.83.113.117) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2000 03:44:36 -0000 Received: by mail.taral.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id D75EE26332; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:07:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.taral.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0AF224B62; Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:07:25 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 23:07:25 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: taral@localhost.localdomain To: Jorge Llambias Cc: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Taral On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > 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. > 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. Then don't say that. What's wrong with "ta ka'e se botpi" or "ta pu'i se botpi"? -- Taral