WikiDiscuss

Jorge Llambas wrote:

>--- xod wrote:
>
>
>>We can call the
>>vase "a lidless (bottle)" or "a (lidless bottle)". This translates as
>>"botpi fo noda" and "botpi fo zi'o", respectively, and referring to the
>>same physical situation.
>>
>>
>
>We should distinguish descriptions from predications here.
>
>{lo botpi be fo noda} is a valid way of referring to lidless bottles.
>That's {zo'e noi ke'a botpi fo no da}, i.e. "the obvious thing,
>which is NOT a bottle with some lid". {lo botpi be fo noda}
>is {lo na botpi be fo su'o da}.
>
>

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)

>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
= ?

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?

--
Iraqi Olympic Soccer Coach Adnan Hamad: "You cannot speak about a team that represents freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an occupying force. This is one of our most miserable times. To be honest with you, even our happiness at winning is not happiness because we are worried about the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we are not really happy."