Subject: RE: the zi'o joke

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:15:11 EDT

Although I do not agree with them, I take it that the following are the 
arguments for understanding {botpi zi'o} as "empty bottle"

1. We do want to say this and all the straightforward ways of so doing end 
up denying that the thing is a botpi at all, however bottly it may be. 
Further, the grammar of {zi'o} looks like that of {zo'e}, so we expect it to 
be some kind of pronoun, not a function-modifier like {se}.

2. {botpi zi'o} clearly covers thing just like botpi but for content, as well 
as things that are fully botpi. If we only want to ignore the content of 
fully botpi items, we can do so by other means: omission, {zo'e}, {da} and so 
on. So, Griceanly, the fact that we use {zi'o} rather than other -- 
including simpler -- means to do this implies that the others would not work, 
i.e., that this almost-botpi does not have a content. That is, although 
{botpi zi'o} does not mean "empty bottle," the fact that we USE {botpi zi'o} 
implies that we mean to convey the information that the bottle is empty.

As to 2, it is close to compelling, except that we -- if we are careful -- 
would use {botpi zi'o} in any case where we were not sure that the bottle had 
content, not only when we were sure (or pretty sure or ....) that it was 
empty. 

As to 1b, the grammar is more or less required here, since it is essential to 
the way it modifies the function that the affected sumti place be indicated. 
To do this as it is in compounds, by {zi'o} plus a place number, requires a 
further complication of the grammar ({zi'o} is then probably a unique with a 
special rule sticking it into the place of {se} or whatever -- with a check 
that it has a legitimate number after it?) for a minor point.

1a sounds like a pretty good idea, but it requires a change in the baseline, 
and this is hardly a crisis enough to call for that.