WikiDiscuss

---

> On Apr 3, 2005 7:33 PM, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <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}.

Right; but at the same time they call the place
structure of {botpi} bloated, that is, containing
unnecessary places. If {botpi} is not "bottle"
because of the lid place, then it cannot be
called bloated, since every place in its
structure is essential to it. You can't have it
both ways and the thrust seems to be generally in
the direction of calling {botpi} bloated. Hence,
{botpi} ought to be compatible with current
{botpi fo zi'o}.

> > and
> > that often gets formulated to make {no da}
> appear
> > to be always illegitmate.
>
> I never saw that formulation other than in your
> characterization.

See above on the implications of the positions. I
don't think anyone else has pointed out this
consequence.

> > > > 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.

Sorry, if you change the place structure, you
change the meaning. With the same meaning, you
are stuck with the same place structure.

> The place structures of the
> listed gismu, in some
> cases, are insane.

This simply means that you do not — for whatever
reason — like that place structure. So change
it — that seems to be what bpfk is all about.
The place structure — by your claim — is (by
definition) exactly right for the concept it
represents. Anything else would be insane (well,
wrong any way).

> 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.

I take it that the popular response to this
pseudo problem is to leave places empty, with
various treatments of that response when asked to
fill in the gaps (I suspect, "I have no idea" and
"I don't care" would be the most usual
responses). In short, just what I have been
reading as the interpretation of blank.

> > > {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.

And yet there are many sentences that are
accepted into the corpus and that are even
thought to be true but that have or may well have
for all we know just that omission. What I am
saying is just what people are doing all the time.