GENERAL: containers

[solpahi]

balningau thread

Let's discuss the age-old question: Are botpi2/baktu2/lanka2/lante2/tansi2/patxu2/kabri2 that which the container currently contains, or that which they are designed to contain? Is the answer the same for each gismu, or is botpi2 just an exception? What is the most beneficial general solution?

[uakci]

I think that vasru₂ should be used for the actual contained things, and [container frame]₂ should be the designated contents.

This brings us to a wider question: why do we have this actual - designated dichotomy that often? There's kosmu, but saying things like kosmyvau (x1 is designated to contain x2, by std x3) is no good, and we don't have a shortcut. But anyway.

[solpahi]

I tend to prefer that container gismu actually contain their x2. botpi2 is the only one that doesn't according to the definition. "A cup of coffee" is much more often useful than "A cup designed to hold coffee". botpi2 probably breaks the pattern because of things like "beer bottle". English influence?

[solpahi]

ti kabri su'o djacu
"This cups some water"

mi ponse ci baktu .i ku'i pa po'o lo baktu cu baktu lo canre
"I have three buckets, but only one of the buckets buckets sand."

? .ai gau mi ti botpi su'o lo .afta ke xamsi djacu .i .au mi ralte
"I'm going to make this (bottle) bottle some of that sea water. I want to hold on to it."

Is it worth it for botpi to be an exception?

Btw, "beer bottle" still works as {birje botpi} either way.

[solpahi]

I am now very convinced that botpi should be adjusted and that all containers actually contain.
Bottles do not deserve special treatment, because cups don't get any either, even though there are special cup shapes for tea cups and coffee cups, and there are wine glasses and beer glasses, and so on. Nothing stops us from using tanru (as in English) or define lujvo like "birjybotpi" with the "designed for" meaning.

I'll make the adjustment(s) within the next few days.

[solpahi]

Although, there is a third option: Remove the places altogether and make it about the shape of the container only. What if a bottle contains nothing (not even air)? Then it doesn't botpi. Or you are forced to say that "nothing" is "something", which is not philosophically neutral.

Obvious downside: when you do want to say what a thing contains, you have to use {vasru}.

ti kabri gi'e vasru su'o djacu
"This is a cup that contains water."

Let's call this Option 3.

[mezohe]

I'm for the ca'a meaning, or failing that, removing the places. {kosmu}/{tutci}/{ka'e} are enough IMO for the other meaning

[lynn]

Something bothers me about these x₂­s. Maybe the uncertainty of their function hints at a bigger problem?

To me, a botpi/patxu/kabru… is just an object with a shape that, incidentally, works well for putting things in. By which I mean: containing things isn’t actually inherent to being-a-bottle, as selpahi’s comment shows; sometimes bottles are, indeed empty. So the x₂ feels irrelevant to botpi-ing.

It would be silly if moklu had a place for contents! Or "things this mouth can chew”, or “things this mouth is chewing”! Similarly, jubme doesn’t have or need a place for “things on top of the table”, or “things the table could bear”.

So I’m for Option 3: removing the places entirely, and making containers more like other tools, by decoupling them from their functions.

[solpahi]

lynn said:

So I’m for Option 3: removing the places entirely,

Option 3 doesn't seem bad...

and making containers more like other tools, by decoupling them from their functions.

Well... take a look at mruli:

x1 [tool] is a hammer for/hammers x2 [target] consisting of weight/head x3 propelled by x4.

I mean. I mean.