Return-path: X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:11:55 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NlhzE-0001RP-VM; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:11:24 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:09:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nlhxz-0001Pv-Gv for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:09:48 -0800 Received: from mail-fx0-f222.google.com ([209.85.220.222]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nlhxd-0001L6-64 for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:09:45 -0800 Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so1571405fxm.26 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:09:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3YpDjjZsnru0EFchtCghYJHelz7kuhoPKUld4tsbrpI=; b=vQ0KTjACwn4YvjwaJHoJwZ83I2u0r5Q3BXhc6FQhMx+y0EqFSrM3sZKLdd5ZiMBZjd KQkGsY5ikUQhub37J42VS20+6bYlU8qXduPIxwsVeZXuLequ6jhH0oLAOCz5qWpO3io5 Fy3Rnh99mUcoZgHWwc/OpPJVJxg6Oows2dG1w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=PEmYXaiKSJhXDyDirJMuT/jsu/Vuu5Xikrv+n1dDmYJBtWT4p6nR+/Z9nv5dH70q8X NWyi2VANNvLmXSdm8LWWzSttxLyaiXlDQlTUrqcJMrOnLW6plzZ1g/GYRgAYtjTaRHuM as/TYkM0+AOQ7K5VWZILNBHMNPcma0LhSfTV8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.6.156 with SMTP id 28mr3457386faz.33.1267358958165; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:09:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5715b9301002271647p832f33fjcdc199987a4a8826@mail.gmail.com> References: <5715b9301002231246w218ac892lb1b4f5cd15e36b75@mail.gmail.com> <23f4e3391002232254y656b226epa409c002fde7adb8@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301002232332m32ce5c4ep8bc04f98a4add7c4@mail.gmail.com> <4de8c3931002240401w52945f9du6db99bacc6dab7c1@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301002240621kc509cd3u8140a30e162c1902@mail.gmail.com> <23f4e3391002241425o170edc5dge38d323e6efd720a@mail.gmail.com> <4de8c3931002251116g7ed835a0r680c29d0b7ca37e1@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301002271026m1aa00bd8xd4ca1179ae6c6efb@mail.gmail.com> <23f4e3391002271407w151d01d3kf65a3c16e073709e@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301002271647p832f33fjcdc199987a4a8826@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:09:18 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 983f266859458659 Message-ID: <4de8c3931002280409t66f137b4v4d8c6c14f4333acd@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: new word: prolijmo'a From: tijlan To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jbotijlan@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 1769 Lines: 31 On 28 February 2010 00:47, Luke Bergen wrote: >>checkboards, uneven and even grids, bricks or pavement tiling, tartan, >>certain carpet patterns, zigzag stitching, pixel art tiles >>(particularly the older, low res ones)... > So these would be those words that I was talking about when I said >> Maybe later if someone wants to describe that pattern that a tic-tac-toe >> board makes they could make a bigger lujvo that pulls {linji} into it > I think checker boards, pixel art tiles, and a brick wall all exhibit a > pattern that is a variation on the basic, standard check pattern.  So, is it > fair to say that the more general/standard the idea, the smaller the lujvo > can comfortably be?  While the more specific/non-standard/varied ideas get > longer lujvo? > e.g.  {cicti'a} = "storm" but when we want to get more specific we have > {bifyvilcarvi} = "windstorm" If "storm" is basic to the meaning of "windstorm", we might want it be morphologically reflected upon lujvo. In spite of their semantic hierarchy, {bifyvilcarvi} does not *appear* to be so based on {cicti'a}, but radically differing in their components. More reasonable would be {bif-cic-ti'a} as "windstorm" based on {cic-ti'a} as "storm". Predictable lujvo like these (or their relationships thereof), are also probably more friendly to most beginners; if they see {bifcicti'a}, they would immediately *see* that its meaning is a specified instance of {cicti'a}, and {cicti'a} of {ti'a/tcima}; and, if they have {cicti'a} but want to get more specific about it in their own expressions, they would know they have to add some specifying component(s) to the basic one, rather than radically swapping it with a whole different set of components (like {bifyvilcarvi}).