From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jun 12 07:40:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 12 Jun 2001 14:40:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 33216 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 14:39:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Jun 2001 14:39:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta2 with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 14:39:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.68.ffb6aa3 (4230) for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <68.ffb6aa3.2857839d@aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:39:25 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: zi'o and modals To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_68.ffb6aa3.2857839d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_68.ffb6aa3.2857839d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/12/2001 6:53:30 AM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes: > >Except, now it bothers me even more that {ti botpi fo zi'o} doesn't > >exclude the set of all bottles that *do* have caps. The way it is, how > >would you say, unambiguously, that "this is a botpi, except without a > >cap"? > > I don't see why "botpi fo noda" doesn't work. It actually DOES have a cap, > potentially (as do most botpi), but there is no cap on it. > My memory (who can find Records any more) is that we hit upon just that convention the last time around. Notice also that, Lojban tenses being what they are, the empty bottle without a cap can still be a Coke bottle, since it is a bottle *for* Coke, though not containing it at the moment. --part1_68.ffb6aa3.2857839d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/12/2001 6:53:30 AM Central Daylight Time,
lojbab@lojban.org writes:


>Except, now it bothers me even more that {ti botpi fo zi'o} doesn't
>exclude the set of all bottles that *do* have caps.  The way it is, how
>would you say, unambiguously, that "this is a botpi, except without a
>cap"?

I don't see why "botpi fo noda" doesn't work.  It actually DOES have a cap,
potentially (as do most botpi), but there is no cap on it.

My memory (who can find Records any more) is that we hit upon just that
convention the last time around.
Notice also that, Lojban tenses being what they are, the empty bottle without
a cap can still be a Coke bottle, since it is a bottle *for* Coke, though not
containing it at the moment.
--part1_68.ffb6aa3.2857839d_boundary--