methods of resolving mismatches between place structures and number of overt sumti
> John E Clifford scripsit:
>
> > 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}.
>
> I agree with all but the last sentence, which
> should be
> "Hence people who talk of bloated place
> structures
> should put up or shut up."
Okay, scratch the "ought", or rather extend it to
"if they are serious about what they say" or some
such. It occurs to me that there is an
unexplored possibility here (which has the same
effect as other suggestions but comes at it in a
different way): not all places in the place
structure or a predicate need to be essential.
that is, some places can be {no da} without that
spilling over to negate the whole, {no da} then
becomes — somewhat against apparent logic --
just another choice among many for that slot, a
breed along side saluki and pit bull for {gerku},
for example.
> > Sorry, if you change the place structure, you
> > change the meaning. With the same meaning,
> you
> > are stuck with the same place structure.
>
> +1
>
> > 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).
>
> +1
>
> My take is that zi'o semantics are never
> obvious or clear-cut:
> using zi'o generates a novel predicate just as
> much as making
> tanru does, and its meaning cannot be
> determined by fiat,
> any more than tanru meaning can. There may be
> things that
> mamta be zi'o, or gerku be zi'o, or botpi be fo
> zi'o, but
> only speaker consensus can say what they may
> be.
>
I suppose that the *idea behind* {zi'o} is that
it takes in those tuples that satisfy the
predicate except for this one place: classically
things that are just like {botpi} but for the lid
-- or that would be botpi had they lids. We have
in mind something we already know to be a bottle
(or a container meant to have a lid) but that
lacks a lid and we want to get it into the botpi
-- or something very like. Clearly this works in
a lot of cases — dogs without breeds (taking
that in a strict technical sense), containers
without lids, and the like. And so we see these
places as being dispense-with-able and the
concept therefore boated. We would not (could
not) do the same for other cases — a trip
without a route or a means of conveyance seems
impossible to us (space warps not being in our
experience — assuming "route" is about
intervening points and sequence). The stripe
place of {tirxu} seems to be of the first sort
because we know of semi-albino tigers and totally
albino other big cats — and also because we have
NO idea what sorts of expressions to put into
that place. (Of course, the fact that this is
the only way to bring in stripes, regardless of
what we are talking about, is another problem --
one of omissions from the vocabulary altogether.)
But the issue here at the moment is not about
what {zi'o}d expressions mean but rather about
what triggers this modification of meaning. MY
position is that plain omission is (and always
has been) used in a way that corresponds not only
to overt {zo'e} (whatever that may be) but also
to overt {zu'i} and {zi'o} (in the sense at least
that the claim would not be withdrawn were it
shown that nothing fit in the omitted place) and
several other versions of "I don't say" as well.
>From my point of view, what is needed is only to
clarify and perhaps expand on the {zo'e} series
to provide clear overt markers for the various
grounds for omission, to meet inquiries about the
omitted places.