From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Aug 31 16:47:57 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 31 Aug 2002 23:47:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 9239 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2002 23:47:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2002 23:47:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Aug 2002 23:47:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17lHxx-0000hx-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:47:45 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17lHxM-0000gK-00; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:47:08 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-1.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.101]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17lHxH-0000gB-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:47:03 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-56.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.56]) by mailbox-1.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 87B5F1F07A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 01:46:29 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] dictionary - which words? Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 00:48:01 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <0208311820150D.03340@neofelis> Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 882 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin > What about {ctelr zei kemxasybakni}? No one would use {kemxasybakni} except > in a zei-lujvo, but one would use {xasybakni} by itself. Should there be an > entry for {ctelr zei kemxasybakni}, or one for {kemxasybakni}? zei creates new lexemes, so "X zei Y" should have its own entry. This is because the meaning of the whole is not wholly derivable from the meaning of the parts. --And.