Return-path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_DKIM_INVALID,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on chain.digitalkingdom.org Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:34:01 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O6YkE-0002fL-BA; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:33:49 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O6Yja-0002fE-Hs for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:33:06 -0700 Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com ([209.85.221.179]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O6YjV-0002el-Ha for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:33:06 -0700 Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so18330312qyk.1 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=ShxPuGkBvHuwBc9PMsCzqwJnT767mXfEHQYsjcnLOkQ=; b=x8agtURyVFxZ6wC+PLlN8VVUz2mXf3NcHQJZkdxGcd+ixUTQSJH8GSZm0HzpaZN8W+ 722sQ/v23OiKqj4SVMG4ZNhRzq3Gu4ci0J/We2d3hcmvYeljLe1Cr32F7ZWDd7xeGHp1 Ig3eQn46DdS85h0oIMDxR2QxldTmwz3K2qjcw= 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; b=Cgpn3oQnEySwhdg2BUE9i67U1Nj3YhZAMDdTNaeGmc1tepJd7KcgOHhFBN5Ass/Msq hMPDthFKvGYtEir6hk6Gu7Zoyzz0ewbUHF8SsvB6cnZi1nGFZRPs2XU9HUFFJRWWM/Gf sPMH//GaRcaiXdrhMeZkbJ4zMuA1IgyLi3a5E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.212.213 with SMTP id gt21mr1766991qcb.2.1272328375210; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.111.102 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:32:55 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: a5c0c30508acd323 Message-ID: Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: catalyst From: tijlan To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630ebbfd7926604852d0884 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: 6120 Lines: 129 --00163630ebbfd7926604852d0884 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 26 April 2010 23:46, * Hieran Makhwali wrote: > > I need a brivla for "catalyst" because I want to make/define/explain a > > brivla for "enzyme", which is a type of catalyst. There are so many > > scientific items that can be discussed concerning this thing, so its > brivla > > should be very productive for the scientific field of Lojbanistan: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme > > just coin a generic "catalyst" lujvo, then use {lanbi} to specify an > enzyme. so, for example: > * stoga'i -> catalyst > * lanbystoga'i -> enzyme > I heard that an enzyme is not necessarily a protein. > as you can see, i'm not sure if it should be {stoga'i} or {gafsto}, > If they come from {stodi je galfi} and {galfi je stodi}, both forms should be ok. {je} does not seem to always make its way into a lujvo even if semantically vital. also the x1 of {galfi} is an event, so it's not very precise. > I don't 100% agree with that definition. I don't understand why {galfi}'s x1 is limited to an event while {cikre}'s x1 isn't. as for {selfusra}, well that would imply a very wide range of > "fermentation", and it would be specific to organic catalysts. but in > a way it seems rather elegant. having been a biochemist myself, > however, i think it's a bit of a stretch to define all enzymatic > reactions as leading to {fusra}, eg. the enzymes that repair DNA. > If {selfusra} does not specifically mean organic catalysts, I'm fine with that. What I meant in my earlier post was that I wanted to have the word in jbovlaste so that I and others would be better equipped to write about enzymes in Lojban, not so that I could define them as "catalysts" per se. By the way, this passage got my attention: Over the past century, the precise classification of inorganic vs organic compounds has become less important to scientists, primarily because the majority of known compounds are synthetic and not of natural origin. Furthermore, most compounds considered the purview of modern inorganic chemistry contain organic ligands. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_compound) --00163630ebbfd7926604852d0884 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 26 April 2010 23:46, * Hieran Makhwali <sarefo@googlemail.= com> wrote:
> I need a brivla for "catalyst" because I w= ant to make/define/explain a
> brivla for "enzyme", which is a type of catalyst. There are = so many
> scientific items that can be discussed concerning this thing, so its b= rivla
> should be very productive for the scientific field of Lojbanistan:
> http= ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme

just coin a generic "catalyst" lujvo, then use {lanbi} to s= pecify an
enzyme. so, for example:
* stoga'i -> catalyst
* lanbystoga'i -> enzyme

I heard that an en= zyme is not necessarily a protein.
=C2=A0
as you can see, i'm not sure if it should be {stoga'i} or {gafsto},=

If they come from {stodi je galfi} and {galfi je = stodi}, both forms should be ok. {je} does not seem to always make its way = into a lujvo even if semantically vital.

also the x1 of {galfi} is an event, so it's not very precise.

I don't 100% agree with that definition. I don't un= derstand why {galfi}'s x1 is limited to an event while {cikre}'s x1= isn't.

as for {selfusra}, well that would imply a very wide range of
"fermentation", and it would be specific to organic catalysts.
but in=
a way it seems rather elegant. having been a biochemist myself,
however, i think it's a bit of a stretch to define all enzymatic
reactions as leading to {fusra}, eg. the enzymes that repair DNA.

If {selfusra} does not specifically mean organic catalysts,= I'm fine with that. What I meant in my earlier post was that I wanted = to have the word in jbovlaste so that I and others would be better equipped= to write about enzymes in Lojban, not so that I could define them as "= ;catalysts" per se.

By the way, this passage got my attention:
Over the past century, th= e precise classification of inorganic vs organic compounds has become less = important to scientists, primarily because the majority of known compounds = are synthetic and not of natural origin. Furthermore, most compounds consid= ered the purview of modern inorganic chemistry contain organic ligands.
(http://en.wiki= pedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_compound)

--00163630ebbfd7926604852d0884--