From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Jun 24 15:49:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 24 Jun 2001 22:49:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 44611 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2001 22:49:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Jun 2001 22:49:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Jun 2001 22:49:04 -0000 Received: from m105-mp1-cvx2c.bre.ntl.com ([62.253.88.105] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15EIS1-0005Ki-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:33:54 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] RE: zi'o and modals Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:48:08 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" > From: Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) [mailto:lojbab@lojban.org] > Sent: 12 June 2001 12:57 > > At 09:19 PM 06/11/2001 -0500, Richard Todd 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"? > > 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. "ti zilvelbotpi gi'e botpi fo no da" (As others pointed out, "This is a botpi, except without a cap" is like saying "He is a father, except without offspring". Not total gibberish, but very weird.) --And.