WikiDiscuss

---

> On Apr 3, 2005 10:16 AM, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > I was rejecting the view that
> > {ta botpi fo no da} is somehow illegitimate
> > altogether and in particular is incompatible
> with
> > {ta botpi} tout court.
>
> Nobody has ever argued that it is illegitimate
> altogether.

Well, to be precise, it has been argued that
nothing that is a bottle can be botpi no da and
that often gets formulated to make {no da} appear
to be always illegitmate. Both positions seem to
me just wrongheaded.

> Many have argued that it is incompatible with
> {ta botpi}.
> One way of making it compatible is to say that
> {ta botpi}
> really is {ta botpi zi'o zi'o zi'o} rather than
>
> {ta botpi zo'e zo'e zo'e}.

This seems to me to be almost as extreme as some
of the other positions and so as unacceptable.
For the usual cases, the most that seems to be
required is {zo'e zo'e zi'o} (or maybe {zu'i} for
{zo'e} and even that seems overprecise for the
real situation.

> > Every dog must be of some breed --
> > however broadly "breed" is defined. but many
> > places ({botpi4} the usual example, though I
> > suppose it could be argued it is not a good
> one)
> > are not essential and so {no da} does not
> affectr
> > some sense here.
>
> Then we at least agree that {no da} is not
> compatible
> with blank/zo'e in essential places? If so, we
> have identified
> where our disagreement lies, namely:

Not quite what I said, which was that a case
using an obviously always filled place is not a
good example for making the point that {no da}
can never be true when blank is true (or is it
the other way round?).

> > If you want to argue that all
> > places are essential by definition or some
> such,
>
> That's what I want to argue. That's why I
> dislike bloating,
> because bloated relationships have a much more
> restricted
> application than intended.

But of coudrse, calling it bloating is just
saying that some listed places are not really
essential, which is at least one thing that is
often going on when someone "omits" a place.

> > then {no da} can never be correct, which
> seems
> > extreme.
>
> {no da} can never be omitted. Obviously it can
> often be correct.

Well, again, the point here is that it can often
be omitted without affecting the rest of the
sentence.

> > The point of leaving a blank is often
> > — not always of course — that what goes in
> that
> > place makes no difference and thus even if
> > nothing goes there it should not affect the
> rest
> > of the sentence.
>
> That would be the blank = zi'o position.

No, because often what goes in there — the
obvious thing, for example, does make a
difference and {zi'o} would possibly get it
wrong.
Blank is simply refusing to specify at all, with
no indication — overtly in this place anyhow --
of what, why, or whether is glossed over.