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=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS, T_DKIM_INVALID,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=ham 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, 17 Dec 2010 07:59:29 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTchy-0001Rc-8X; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:59:02 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:58:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTchV-0001RQ-Rr for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:58:33 -0800 Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTchS-0001R7-5t for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:58:33 -0800 Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so1767065qyj.19 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:58:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=W03WyV3DE8vOd5wOAPhSnRfRFEobCFT5BJpCT06aJ6w=; b=cldT4y/UY4DL5aM716DCjGJiwuhsxIn8YfvELpae/NKkQIFUUi8DE5FTMEfkBMTPME q7WxjujD8w/XswGBzLJC86vQH9DG7j90qdv9cw1ZniSUwlDF1AHFOQhWpZppMG/CrDu+ PHbZ+PYXZUz3eSVZrwqC4GUuJyqRLXju2uZNQ= 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=Rv54a/oGlfCJ+7jxgLgqG8671ZIe2uhlKwpds4LpCmi5N5YsHhvqHTOLA6EUhnYZsZ 8mmQixPPu7TWzH6GI0JXB3bEU8/uxIq3xVpUxH8hHKeBuKZarIy5BjIRM4KaRjSm1+AD gyCHFQwlIeG7tx+EHvmemaV+i9UZnLyEcN6QY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.85.210 with SMTP id p18mr977472qcl.266.1292601504360; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:58:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.48.14 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:58:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:58:24 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: defining "debug" From: "Aviv S." To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364ef3fc80eb1a04979d3d48 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: seraviv@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 2251 Lines: 52 --0016364ef3fc80eb1a04979d3d48 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I strongly agree that we shouldnt try to "stuff" every lujvo into an english gloss. Isn't one of the reasons for lojban: to think outside the box? paunai :) On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Luke Bergen wrote: > But again it's sampla specific. Maybe cfisisku is a more generic word than > any one word that we have in english. Maybe it's gloss is just "fault > find". > > One of my biggest pet peeves with the apparent process for defining lujvo > in the community is this mindset of "ok what would the english gloss for > that be? Can't think of one? Ok, must be a bad word. Let's shoehorn he > definition into something else so we can have a nice english gloss. > > I propose: cfisisku = lo sisku cu sisku lo cfalu lo te sisku > > However you want to define that in english is fine with me. > --0016364ef3fc80eb1a04979d3d48 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I strongly agree that we shouldnt try to "stuff"= every lujvo into an english gloss. Isn't one of the reasons for lojban= : to think outside the box? paunai :)

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gma= il.com> wrote:

But again it's sampla specific.=A0 Maybe cfisisku is a more generic = word than any one word that we have in english.=A0 Maybe it's gloss is = just "fault find".

One of my biggest pet peeves with the apparent process for defining lujv= o in the community is this mindset of "ok what would the english gloss= for that be?=A0 Can't think of one?=A0 Ok, must be a bad word.=A0 Let&= #39;s shoehorn he definition into something else so we can have a nice engl= ish gloss.

I propose:=A0 cfisisku =3D lo sisku cu sisku lo cfalu lo te sisku

However you want to define that in english is fine with me.


--0016364ef3fc80eb1a04979d3d48--