Return-path: Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:28:26 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GYHSe-00055t-Q8; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:28:07 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GYHSb-00055n-Db for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:28:01 -0700 Received: from f75.mail.ru ([194.67.57.175] helo=f89.mail.ru) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GYHSV-00055b-QY for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:28:01 -0700 Received: from mail by f89.mail.ru with local id 1GYHSS-000D9A-00 for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:27:52 +0400 Received: from [212.17.0.61] by win.mail.ru with HTTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:27:52 +0400 From: Yanis Batura To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Examples in jbovlaste Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19 X-Originating-IP: unknown via proxy [212.17.0.61] Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:27:52 +0400 In-Reply-To: =?windows-1251?Q?<492.a38cefc.32609718=40wmconnect.com>?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ybatura@mail.ru Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) Content-Length: 738 Lines: 20 -----Original Message----- From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:15:36 EDT Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Examples in jbovlaste > > What hear I? Each definition is a different meaning? I always thought each > > definition is a different way of describing/defining the same meaning... if > > not, then Lojban will collapse into the sea of ambiguity :) > > I didn't realize that you were talking about multiple definitions of a single > word. Presumably the meanings and examples are (or should be) totally > independent of each other, with the examples having priority, as partially > determining that meaning. Well then, I vote for common examples for the whole dictionary entry :)