WikiDiscuss

---

> Do you realize that in usage, people usually use "noda" to mean "lacks a
> lid", and not this contradiction of the entire sentence which you are
> performing, which generally results in something meaningless (applicable
> to camels, stars, etc)

Can you give examples?

I don't think people say things like {mi patfu noda} to
mean "I am indeed a father, one that happens to have no children".

The {botpi} example is odd because {botpi} has a weird place
structure which does not correspond to its keyword. Try examples
with natural place structures an you will see that {noda} works
as you would expect.

> >If I say of something, {ta botpi fo no da}, I am saying
> >{ta na botpi fo su'o da}, i.e. "that does not bottle fo something".
>
> How does this even work?
>
> ta botpi fo no da
> = noda zo'u ta botpi fo da
> = ?

Yes.

= naku su'oda zo'u ta botpi fo da

noda = naku su'oda
no thing = not the case that at least one thing

> And if so, how do we discuss lidless bottles? zi'o doesn't mean the lid
> doesn't exist, only that we don't want to discuss it. Or is that convention
> getting overhauled too?

Nothing is getting overhauled here. Lidless bottles are hard to
discuss in terms of {botpi} just because {botpi} has the wrong
place structure for that concept. {caircau zilbotpi} would be
"lidless bottle", where {zilbotpi} is a more general concept
than {botpi}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush