From richardt@flash.net Tue Jun 12 13:31:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richardt@flash.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 12 Jun 2001 20:31:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 25397 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 20:31:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Jun 2001 20:31:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pimout2-int.prodigy.net) (207.115.63.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 20:31:30 -0000 Received: from flash.net ([216.51.104.247]) by pimout2-int.prodigy.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f5CKVRV146516; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:31:27 -0400 Sender: richardt@pimout2-int.prodigy.net Message-ID: <3B266B79.E770BADC@flash.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:20:25 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jorge Llambias Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: zi'o and modals References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Richard Todd Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la lojbab cusku di'e > > >I don't see why "botpi fo noda" doesn't work. > > A toy airplane, a soccer football and a banana are all instances > of {lo botpi be fo noda}, they are all members of {lo'i botpi be > fo no da}. (That is not what we usually mean by "a bottle without > a cap" in English.) I agree; this approach makes sense to me. But what about the idea this... Although the sentence itself carries no more meaning than what you're saying, the fact that the speaker chose {botpi} instead of {mlatu} is bound to carry some sort of meta-meaning. Especially if the speaker goes to the trouble to fill the other places: ti botpi le djacu le slasi noda I agree that it isn't false to refer to banana with this sentence. However, if you heard someone say this to you, wouldn't you assume that it was something having to do with the concepts {botpi} {djacu} and {slasi}. Otherwise, why would the speaker have said them? Further, wouldn't your first guess be that the breaking point of the relationship involves the cap? Otherwise, why would the speaker choose {fo noda}, when {noda} in any position has a similar effect? What do you think? Should this enter into the interpretation? I'd prefer to think not, but it may go against basic human nature. (In other words, the speakers choice of words often carries as much information as the words themselves, IMO). Richard