From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jun 12 14:37:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 12 Jun 2001 21:37:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 72064 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 21:37:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Jun 2001 21:37:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 21:37:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.108.129a676 (6932) for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <108.129a676.2857e5b2@aol.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:37:54 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: zi'o and modals To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_108.129a676.2857e5b2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_108.129a676.2857e5b2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/12/2001 2:24:32 PM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com writes: > So why don't we just change the meaning of 'botpi' so that it only has three > places and none for a cap? Then we could have a gismu that means cap (If we > don't already) and then say 'ti botpi .i ta cu [cap] ti' to say this is a > bottle and that is its cap, and the botpi relationship would make sense. > You have asked the impossible question. We don't change now because we are in freeze-land, wherein no changes are to be made unless catastrophe looms (i.e., the parser finds an ambiguity). As to why things got set up the way they did, why {botpi} has four places, but {tansi} three and {vasru} two, one can only point to history and the warped pyches of the devisers -- including what they happened to be thinking about at the moment they got to that word in the list. Indeed, why that word is on the list but some other is not is also lost in mists of prehistory (I have not been able to find any notes from 1955 or 6, when this was starting up) -- though Eaton and Basic English reputedly played significant roles. But we would have problems of some sort with any list; learn to live with this one. --part1_108.129a676.2857e5b2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/12/2001 2:24:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
ragnarok@pobox.com writes:

So why don't we just change the meaning of 'botpi' so that it only has three
places and none for a cap? Then we could have a gismu that means cap (If we
don't already) and then say 'ti botpi .i ta cu [cap] ti' to say this is a
bottle and that is its cap, and the botpi relationship would make sense.

You have asked the impossible question. We don't change now because we are
in freeze-land, wherein no changes are to be made unless catastrophe looms
(i.e., the parser finds an ambiguity). As to why things got set up the way
they did, why {botpi} has four places, but {tansi} three and {vasru} two, one
can only point to history and the warped pyches of the devisers -- including
what they happened to be thinking about at the moment they got to that word
in the list. Indeed, why that word is on the list but some other is not is
also lost in mists of prehistory (I have not been able to find any notes from
1955 or 6, when this was starting up) -- though Eaton and Basic English
reputedly played significant roles. But we would have problems of some sort
with any list; learn to live with this one. --part1_108.129a676.2857e5b2_boundary--