methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti
On Apr 3, 2005 7:33 PM, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
The argument is that nothing that is a _botpi_ can be a botpi fo no da.
Things that are bottles can be botpi fo no da, and therefore not botpi.
In other words, the English "bottle" is not coextensive with the Lojban
{botpi}.
> and
> that often gets formulated to make {no da} appear
> to be always illegitmate.
I never saw that formulation other than in your characterization.
> > > 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,
More precisely: they would not be essential with a sane meaning
of the gismu. The place structures of the listed gismu, in some
cases, are insane. So the alternatives are to pay no attention
to the listed place structures, and use the gismu as if they
had more usable place structures (a very popular choice in
practice) or take the place structures seriously, with the resulting
complications in the expressions. If we take the listed place structures
seriously, every argument takes as much a part in the relationship
as every other.
> > {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.
{ta botpi fo no da} says "that doesn't botpi a single thing",
which cannot be equivalent to {ta botpi}, which means
"that does botpi". So at least in my understanding of Lojban,
omitting {noda} is like omitting {naku}, it always affects the
rest of the sentence rather crucially.
mu'o mi'e xorxes