Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 07:24:11 -0800
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.hn.org>
Organization: dis
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: to injure
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:21:54 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <20050109100728.GF4597@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050109100728.GF4597@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200501091021.54281.phma@phma.hn.org>
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 572
Lines: 17

On Sunday 09 January 2005 05:07, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> So, is xairgau "to injure" or "injure in the sense of intransitive
> verb" or what?
>
> We should standardize on something; this has come up a lot.

"to" should be left off verbs; it is not part of the lexical form. {xairgau} 
is not intransitive; even plain {xrani} is transitive. I think "cause injury" 
is a better gloss than "injure", but "cause injury" could also be a gloss for 
{xainri'a}, so maybe {xairgau} should be disambiguated with "agentive".

phma
-- 
.i le babzba ba zbasu
lo jbazbabu lo babjba