History: all places equally important gotcha

Source of version: 8 (current)

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 [i]un[/i]important, 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. ta'a. A bottle that's lost its lid is still "lo botpi" - it's "lo pu botpi". (Incidentally, there's a zi'evla for any bottle-shaped object: zo ".otpi".) What we call in English a hammer can always be called in Lojban "lo mruli" - it's "lo ka'e mruli", specifically it's "lo nu'o mruli" until it's used, and then it's "lo pu'i mruli". It's true that "mruli" and "botpi" have very different implications than the equivalent English words, but that's to be expected, what with our long-standing aversion to malgli. I do happen to be of the school of thought that says that "zi'o" can potentially be what's implied by an empty space, but one should still start with respect for the soul of the word: The relationship of "botpi" is down to its bones one between a bottle and its lid, "mruli" between a hammer and what it drives, and "mlatu" between a cat and its ancestors. The meaning of a gismu comes from its places. -la selckiku I’d say that was true about a bridi but is it really true for the words themselves in all their forms? Isn’t the following exchange OK: .i ti botpi lo sodva .igo'i fima .igo'i lo blaci .igo'i foma .igo'i fozi'o Saying that a non–in-use hammer isn’t a valid base for a “ti mruli” bridi is fine, but what about the sumti form? “lo mruli” is invalid xorlo because there’s no current “lo selmru”, “lo termru” or “lo velmru”? Is the relationship between a hammer and its head expressable by “da mruli fode” regardless of whether the hammer is in use or not? This gotcha page claims no. I just can’t get behind that.