Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: zi'o and modals

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:41:00 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote:

> >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"?
>
> You could say for example:
>
> ti botpi fo zi'o secau lo gacri
>
> but you are not really talking about a botpi there, zi'o changes
> the realtionship to something else, and botpi is the weirdly
> specific bottle-content-material-cap relationship.

This fundamentalism can be confining. People regularly use klama for
walking, but there really is no vehicle involved. If you want to get
surreal enough, and call a shoe a vehicle, then you can call a nonexistent
cap a sort of cap, just like zero is a number and black is a color, and
the null set is a set. How far should we take this?

-----
We do not like And if a cat
those Rs and Ds, needed a hat?
Who can't resist Free enterprise
more subsidies. is there for that!