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,HTML_MESSAGE, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:45:41 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NnDEo-0001vo-Ka; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:45:26 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:45:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NnDEX-0001v7-SC for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:45:06 -0800 Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NnDEO-0001mK-9N for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:45:03 -0800 Received: by vws16 with SMTP id 16so1099114vws.40 for ; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:44:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=5VLqnFT1lJ762SNqmc0mhYmM0y39tbmNDIFguLpLjzM=; b=jyr9rQ7Vei3Hdq648SLRMkXfqr4kqUYlAhZds66FB/pWMMGxryqTLiKlASCkYrObY0 dPchOlJs2qqvgrhTbo656vQsPFPGxNodAtbF7Pbxp3IoBMZcJJoiHJYNrbGqSfjsBSxm uv4OxyMhLF92x/ELKeB5yw+KMI1CJIkr1eSbQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=qc5pDleYVeG80G5gCPmv+77Y5ysy6re7WgOt+/DrPIlIjh6Q+5b++6LHyQIPxgRYfY Va05SVqVVbXeT6D3/BcrqNE0xO4ewoCTxnQhpVtS5Dln5HycoKN5VXY4YH29hSldVgjr 073ylSnlJmQP4uA9h+QIZq1OkeCe3gMfvugO4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.108.31 with SMTP id d31mr1939579vcp.177.1267717485352; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:44:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <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> <657409.52050.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:44:45 -0500 Message-ID: <5715b9301003040744i72dc63fcob07780c261b14f0@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: eyeglasses vs contact lenses vs etc From: Luke Bergen To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f8fe9e563da870480fb7a6f X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 6822 Lines: 206 --00c09f8fe9e563da870480fb7a6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable haha, I just realized that that second one (the twitter one) was me. So, I'll say that I was just using the word generally, allowing context to inform you that that they were {kanla to'e snipa lenjo} specifically ;) On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:36 AM, A. PIEKARSKI wrote: > > > > > It's > > > too late > > for that. {le'otci} already means =93eyeglasses=94. If you want somethi= ng > > > > > 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 (the= re > are > > lots of completely hopeless lujvo in those lists after all), but IMHO i= t > > 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=3D"http://twitter.com/lbergen/status/8737360775" target=3D_blan= k > > >http://twitter.com/lbergen/status/8737360775 > > | .ije mi'o dasni lo > > solri le'otci > -- > href=3D" > http://www.mail-archive.com/lojban-beginners@lojban.org/msg03212.html" > > target=3D_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 =93The tanru of lujvo X could refer to a= ny > kind of > > Y, therefore the lujvo X should refer to Y in general, and no other, mo= re > > precise concept=94. > > We have a way to express =93eyeglasses=94. We have a way to > > express =93lens tool=94. It doesn't _hurt_ to have more ways to say > =93eyeglasses=94, > > but it's not _necessary_. And we can't just widen the meaning of the wo= rd > > {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 =93contact lens=94, 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 min= d, > an adequate justificationj for shutting dowm attempts at coming up with > better lujvo alternatives. > > totus > > > > > --00c09f8fe9e563da870480fb7a6f Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable haha, I just realized that that second one (the twitter one) was me. =A0So,= I'll say that I was just using the word generally, allowing context to= inform you that that they were {kanla to'e snipa lenjo} specifically ;= )

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:36 AM, A. PIEKARSK= I <totus@rogers.co= m> wrote:



> It's
> > too late
> for that. {le'otci} already means =93eyeglasses=94. If you want so= mething
>
> > that could mean any kind of lens tool, use {lenjo tutci}.
>
>
> Why is it to late?=A0 Just because=A0{le'otci} is=A0in jbovlaste d= oesn'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=3D"http://twitter.com/lbergen/status/8737360775= " target=3D_blank
> >http://twitter.com/lbergen/status/8737360775=

| .ije mi'o dasni lo
> solri le'otci
-- > href=3D"http://www.mail-archive= .com/lojban-beginners@lojban.org/msg03212.html"
> target=3D_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 occ= urrences
> of {kaldadle'o}.

My point is that comparatively little weight should be
> given to arguments of the form =93The tanru of lujvo X could refer to = any kind of
> Y, therefore the lujvo X should refer to Y in general, and no other, m= ore
> precise concept=94.

We have a way to express =93eyeglasses=94. We have a way to
> express =93lens tool=94. It doesn't _hurt_ to have more ways to sa= y =93eyeglasses=94,
> 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'r= e doing.

By
> the way, I couldn't find any existing words for =93contact lens=94= , so the fact that
> tijlan is trying to make one is very good. Anything with {snipa} + {le= njo} 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 bet= ter lujvo alternatives.

totus





--00c09f8fe9e563da870480fb7a6f--