Return-path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) 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=3.3.1 X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chain.digitalkingdom.org Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:55:03 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OjuiU-00052P-JB; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:54:39 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ojuhs-00051L-Pi for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:54:01 -0700 Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ojuhn-0004to-7L for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:54:00 -0700 Received: by vws15 with SMTP id 15so1378856vws.40 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:53:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=BRhaCXiHTT+diLGY1CGcXWkUiDzOgeoLJNzT1e9E1m0=; b=PpcCdWmIUK/pMC/rHkiHWAXMGA+FOOGuUJWE0D9W4VXx4xMilxolzWnN+St7SY3nYT 48Q7rObinETpuDf3jWW9muYlOhwx/1jLX0ihhxzAasDmD0reQmilLESear1/k5kiTA39 DU9/8mEStreoGB1vS+9MOKKSacqg6SblqXuAM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=eTKHHQLFSYHx5F4GREqDcrhdMsjJttTWYoUVduFv9Ov1Qxy9tKt47UxRFotT+9Lf/e zI8EmGGsuwBwD0PQeOcS4n4ff01/dnupkp/NLOqzmg8qKMYHTjiXnXn0zw5VeJO7/+hd WB2/13CNzIcvUOA4koOfH4JWsZLa44VRAWZ0w= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.125.23 with SMTP id w23mr791655vcr.276.1281707628557; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.123.96 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:53:48 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [jbovlaste] zu'edji From: Luke Bergen To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636d344b1e7f54a048db4cfd7 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: 4374 Lines: 90 --001636d344b1e7f54a048db4cfd7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think I actually may have taken some part in defining this word: Word: zu'edji [jbovlaste] Type: lujvo Gloss Word: intend in the sense of "wish to do" Gloss Word: pretend in the sense of "wish to do" Definition: z1 intends/wishes to do z2 for z3. Place Keywords: 1. pretender in the sense of "someone who wishes to do something" 2. pretention But could somebody remind me why "intend" is a gloss for zu'edji. When tax season comes around I "intend" to get my taxes done but I really don't desire to do them. People intend to do all kinds of things that they really don't djica/desire/want/wish to have happen. Also the "for z3" is kind of ambiguous. I'm assuming that it means "for purpose/towards end z3" but it's not clear. I propose changing the definition of {zu'edji} just a bit so that instead of: Definition: z1 intends/wishes to do z2 for z3 we have: Definition: z1 wishes/desires to do z2 for purpose z3 and create a new lujvo: {zukpla} with a definition like: Definition: z1 intends/plans to do z2 (event) for purpose z3 Thoughts and opinions? Also, how easy/not is it to modify an existing definition? Would there need to be a whole new definition made and up-voted and then just down-vote this definition? Because that seems excessive and maybe not worth it. --001636d344b1e7f54a048db4cfd7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think I actually may have taken some part in defining this word:

Word: zu'edji [jbovlaste]
        Type: lujvo
  Gloss Word: intend in the sense of "w=
ish to do"
  Gloss Word: pretend in the sense of "=
;wish to do"
  Definition: z1 intends/wishes to do z2 for z3.
  Place Keywords:
    1. pretender in the sense of "so=
meone who wishes to do something"
    2. pretention

But could somebody remind me why "intend" is a gl= oss for zu'edji. =A0When tax season comes around I "intend" t= o get my taxes done but I really don't desire to do them. =A0People int= end to do all kinds of things that they really don't djica/desire/want/= wish to have happen. =A0Also the "for z3" is kind of ambiguous. = =A0I'm assuming that it means "for purpose/towards end z3" bu= t it's not clear.

I propose changing the definition of {zu'edji} just= a bit so that instead of:
Definition: z1 intends/wishes to do z2= for z3
we have:
Definition: z1 wishes/desires to do z2= for purpose z3

and create a new lujvo: {zukpla} with a definition like= :
Definition: z1 intends/plans to do z2 (event) for purpose z3

Thoughts and opinions?
Also, how easy/not = is it to modify an existing definition? =A0Would there need to be a whole n= ew definition made and up-voted and then just down-vote this definition? = =A0Because that seems excessive and maybe not worth it.
--001636d344b1e7f54a048db4cfd7--