Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:01:02 -0700
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;  s=s1024; d=rogers.com;  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;  b=FgmH+DN/WGkd2e/TLkKOPzrETQINOfYYqVZ6nOm5RPua3ETiUI/VnkRVbEzjw5X27eAUvLjZUwVYwJpZGxxrfL+On6e+HZq7blQd9hZoLsZdWezelFXGDfkTnnsTmgPu/Rot5KQ7hCbPwdHjEIF+jhzKODBjfe+WQZ+c5Z7rF8c=;
Message-ID: <388365.64574.qm@web88006.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <365020.54217.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>  <96f789a60910121208q1e41007are2c3f6c2ccd650f2@mail.gmail.com>  <805802.30080.qm@web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <96f789a60910141141m482ccf9dy4fbd96a18fb537bb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Esther Chapter 2
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <96f789a60910141141m482ccf9dy4fbd96a18fb537bb@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1143
Lines: 40


----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
> To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
> Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 2:41:19 PM
> Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Esther Chapter 2
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM, A. PIEKARSKI wrote:
> 
> >> >
> >> > 3) {speme'a}
> >> >
> >> > m1=s1 is a concubine, with lower rank than m2 by the amount of m4 ranks,
> >> belonging to s2 under tradition s3.
> >> >
> >>
> >>   No.  I have it me'aspe, not speme'a (as you have here)  for a
> >> reason.  I think the important thing is that it's a wife, not that
> >> it's a lesser thing.
> >>
> >>   m1=s1 is a concubine/lesser spouse of s2 under law/custom/convention s3
> >>
> >
> > But isn't this the same situation that we discussed with xorxes for words like
> > {selteptce}, {stanycma}, and plinycma?
> 
>   Which, if you recall, I vociferously debated him on "plinycma" (I
> have the whole thread save, if you need me to rehash it), 

Please send me the address of the thread.  I agree that your approach is consistent 
with CLL.  However there must be some basis for what xorxes proposes, so perhaps  
I should revisit it.

totus