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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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 08:21:09 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTd33-00086C-GW; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:20:49 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:20:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTd2M-00085T-0k for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:20:06 -0800 Received: from mail-gx0-f176.google.com ([209.85.161.176]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PTd2G-0007tc-Kt for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:20:05 -0800 Received: by gxk4 with SMTP id 4so447014gxk.7 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.202.2 with SMTP id z2mr682353anf.266.1292602794796; Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunflowerriver.org (c-68-35-167-179.hsd1.nm.comcast.net [68.35.167.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b27sm4404262ana.8.2010.12.17.08.19.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:19:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:19:49 -0700 From: ".alyn.post." To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: defining "debug" Message-ID: <20101217161949.GI32499@alice.local> Mail-Followup-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 1496 Lines: 38 On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:43:01AM -0500, 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. .i ki'a zo cfalu .i ma valsi .i .uinai mi na djica lo nu glico tamgau .i mi retsku je cipcta .i mi na ca djica lo pa nu danfu .i lo mi ba danfu cu balvi .i e'o ko kucli Triggering pet peeve was most certainly not my intend, I did not perceive that as happening here and I'm very sorry to have created that impression. I'm interested in exploring this definition space and asking questions, in order to best understand it before providing answers. I'm most certainly in agreement with you that we do not need English concepts for Lojbanic words. I did not intend my asking for one to imply that there needed to be a singtle word--I'm very (very) new at defining Lojban words, and I'm more than happy to have guidance. Thank you for your suggestion for cfisisku. .i mu'o mi'e .alyn. -- .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi