Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:37:15 -0800
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=W7o7FHj0V0jza2ZpgyiMZ5KlEDXhrSSn0IjVgNmzdiY19uvTUzpe3wjJBtmrgiDK+e4rRqMsbooPTvnv3z752xszXGFBxJsRvJejF1seI3EfjxIFN9SvI5XehWnVrlxh0VEKl2GTiBfpX4WpaWTYXIDIsAKab4xGgvxAwGT2sLI=;
Message-ID: <657409.52050.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <4de8c3931003040522m26d25b38wf82180dfdaa27589@mail.gmail.com> <20100304135115.GH8253@nvg.org> <233463.92445.qm@web88002.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20100304145803.GI8253@nvg.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:36:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: eyeglasses vs contact lenses vs etc
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <20100304145803.GI8253@nvg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 2267
Lines: 67


> It's 
> > too late 
> for that. {le'otci} already means “eyeglasses”. If you want something 
> 
> > that could mean any kind of lens tool, use {lenjo tutci}.
> 
> 
> Why is it to late?  Just because {le'otci} is in jbovlaste doesn't mean it's 
> carved in stone.

No, of course not. But it has been in different lujvo 
> lists since the early 90s. That, in itself, doesn't count for much (there are 
> lots of completely hopeless lujvo in those lists after all), but IMHO it 
> strengthens the case when it also has had some usage.

> And I don't 
> see that {le'otci} has been used that much in the past anyway.

I found 
> three on Google:

| .i ko'a pilno lo cukla le'otci gi'e dasni lo bebna 
> purci taxfu
-- > >http://www.handgranat.org/Jikybebna

| doi #lojban mi puzi cpacu le 
> cnino le'otci .uicai
-- > href="http://twitter.com/lbergen/status/8737360775" target=_blank 
> >http://twitter.com/lbergen/status/8737360775

| .ije mi'o dasni lo 
> solri le'otci
-- > href="http://www.mail-archive.com/lojban-beginners@lojban.org/msg03212.html" 
> target=_blank 
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/lojban-beginners@lojban.org/msg03212.html

There 
> might be more in the mail archives or IRC logs. I did not find any occurrences 
> of {kaldadle'o}.

My point is that comparatively little weight should be 
> given to arguments of the form “The tanru of lujvo X could refer to any kind of 
> Y, therefore the lujvo X should refer to Y in general, and no other, more 
> precise concept”.

We have a way to express “eyeglasses”. We have a way to 
> express “lens tool”. It doesn't _hurt_ to have more ways to say “eyeglasses”, 
> but it's not _necessary_. And we can't just widen the meaning of the word 
> {le'otci} when it has been used by people who know what they're doing.

By 
> the way, I couldn't find any existing words for “contact lens”, so the fact that 
> tijlan is trying to make one is very good. Anything with {snipa} + {lenjo} would 
> probably be adequate.

You make some good points BUT three uses in the whole of Lojban's history 
of a lujvo which may or may not have been well-designed is not, in my mind,
an adequate justificationj for shutting dowm attempts at coming up with better lujvo alternatives.

totus