History: all places equally important gotcha

All places of every bridi are equally important to the meaning. Thus, since botpi means x1 is a bottle for x2 made of x3 with lid x4, anything without a lid is not a botpi. Likewise, both sivni and nalsivni mean hidden/secret:

sivni

x1 is hidden/secret, and known only to x2

nalsivni

x1 is hidden/secret, and not known to x2

Or to put it otherwise:

sivni

x2 is a bearer of secret x1

nalsivni

x2 is not a bearer of secret x1

• Something is being lost in the English translation here. While nalsivni could be defined that way, it need not be. If not, then you need to use a different English rendering:

nalsivni

x1 is an idea which is not hidden/secret to x2 (but may be hidden/secret to someone else)

or in the other order

nalsivni

x2 is not knowledgeable about x1 (which may or may not be a secret to someone else)

So, in lojban, a cat cannot exist unless it is of a specific breed?

• Not exactly. But a cat can only be in relationship mlatu with a breed, it can't be in that relationship with something that is not a breed. A cat that is not in relationship mlatu with a breed does not mlatu, but it could still zasti, why not?

• All cats belong to some breed. If it isn't la merko torkre or la manin (Manx), perhaps it is la mongrel.

sivni

x1, x2 such that their relationship is: x1 is hidden/secret, and known only to x2

nalsivni

x1, x2 such that their relationship is other than: x1 is hidden/secret, and known only to x2

tolsivni

x1, x2 such that their relationship is the opposite of: x1 is hidden/secret, and known only to x2

The exact meanings of nal- and tol- for a specific case cannot be any more clearly defined without discussing the specific meaning of the concept. For some concepts, nal- may be meaningless (or context-dependent); for others, tol- may be. --xod

The gismu list explicitly states "excluded/in the dark (= nalselsivni)", and it's hard to imagine what else "na'e sivni" might mean relevantly.

zo zi'o mo i

So a general-purpose bottle (i.e that wasn't made for a specific sebotpi) and has lost its lid isn't a botpi. Fungus spores that haven't attached yet aren't mledi. A mruli that's not in current use isn't a mruli. I can't get behind this. If you were to say, however, that all places where equally iun/iimportant, however, I'd be right there. Using lo velbo'i for a found bottletop on a beach (who's bottle is long broken).

later:
All right, gave this some thought.
If you mean that no place is more important than any other place, I’m with you all the way, but that’s a no-brainer. For example, you can say nitcu da without saying who’s doing the needing. If you mean that all places are required to exist, that we have to zi'o away them explicitly, then no way, I quit.