From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Aug 19 02:43:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12346 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2000 09:43:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Aug 2000 09:43:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hn.egroups.com) (10.1.2.221) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2000 09:43:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.102] by hn.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Aug 2000 09:43:49 -0000 Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:43:40 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: Careful with noi! Message-ID: <8nlksc+pc35@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <6f.9498e6f.26cd96ab@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2548 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, pycyn@a... wrote: >> In a message dated 00-08-17 15:00:40 EDT, maikl writes: >> >> perhaps my lojbanic point would be clearer if e.g. a gismu for "cherry" >> had (say) an x3 place for its "stone" & in the song they used ZI'O there >> and the baseline of {zi'o} ... > ... won't reach to that. That baseline drops the {zi'o}d position from the > definition of the term but does not guarantee that it is empty ({botpi zio} > means "bottle" but without reference to its content, not "bottle without any > content"). The interesting question is whether something can be a botpi zi'o > even if it noworld has a content -- the description seems to say not but the > examples contain one that says yes. That, now for me, really is the question: Does /zi'o/ "fill" a selbri structure's place "with explicit emptiness" or does it strip off the place itself, thus creating a new selbri with a different place structure?! The "Woldemar Bible" (I gladly own myself now) seems ambiguous and puzzling to me in this regard (p. 157/156): a) "... when a bridi fills one of its places with 'zi'o', what is really meant is that the selbri *has a place* which is irrelevant(???) to the true relationship the speaker wishes to express..." b) "Note : the use of 'zi'o' to block up, as it were, one place of the selbri actually creates a new selbri with a different place structure..." John's first example is convincing (regarding the first interpretation): loi jmive cu se zbasu zi'o loi selci because I indeed want to express that there *is no maker* (i.e. the maker-place has to be filled with a negative/zero..., but the place itself is there anyway). And it is stressed that its contents is not just unimportant like when using /zo'e/ instead. Yet, the following examples don't seem convincing to me: zi'o zbasu le dinji loi mudri (or: le dinji se zbasu zi'o loi mudri), mi zbasu zi'o loi mudri and mi zbasu le dinji zi'o (BTW, in the last sentence is a typo! It erroneously reads: mi zbasu loi mudri zi'o) Unlike in the cell-example (where infact is no maker, except maybe nature or god), *there are* makers or materials although unexpressed: I build *something* (maybe a house/houses etc.) using wood, I make the building (using some material unexpressed), hence why *not* using /zo'e/ in these cases?! mi zbasu zo'e loi mudri, mi zbasu le dinji zo'e What use of zi'o should there be, if it didn't explicitely express that the place respective is *empty* and not just irrelevant (and hence unexpressed). .aulun.