From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Jun 12 16:05:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 12 Jun 2001 23:05:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 17466 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 23:04:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 12 Jun 2001 23:04:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 23:04:20 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:04:20 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.176 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:04:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.176] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: zi'o and modals Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:04:20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2001 23:04:20.0845 (UTC) FILETIME=[03A861D0:01C0F394] From: "Jorge Llambias" la ritcrd cusku di'e >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}. Consider a more verb-like gismu: ti dunda le djacu noda Would you assume that ti is a giver? Of course if I hear the {ti botpi} sentence I will think they are talking about a bottle, but I can't say whether it is the lojban or the English key-word that suggests this. In any case, it would be a bottle that doesn't botpi. If we take the place structure of botpi seriously, then some bottles botpi and some bottles don't botpi. English "bottle" is a more general term than Lojban "botpi". >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? It doesn't really have the same effect. Your sentence is compatible, for example, with: ti botpi le vanju le blaci le gacri This one is not compatible with: ti botpi noda le blaci le gacri So where you put noda matters. We can have bottles without caps, but we can't have botpi without ve botpi. In {ti dunda le djacu noda} the relationship breaks because there is no receipient, but that doesn't mean that we will say that ti is a dunda. In fact we will say that ti na dunda. And similarly ti na botpi in the other case. >What do you think? Should this enter into the interpretation? I'd >prefer to think not, but it may go against basic human nature. Of course, because the definition of botpi goes against basic human nature. There is not much justification to blend the container-contained and the container-cap relationships into one, especially in a basic root. If botpi had no cap place, one could create a lujvo such as {gairbotpi} for that more specific relationship, but the way things are we either fight against the "natural" interpretation, or we give up on trying to be logical. >(In >other words, the speakers choice of words often carries as much >information as the words themselves, IMO). I agree with that. I just want to insist that choosing "botpi" is very different from choosing "bottle" when there is no cap. mu's mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.