On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Jorge Llamb=EDas= <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> son-in-law would usually be tixspe ("= nakni pazyspe", "male
>> offspring-spouse") would be a more exact translation, which i= s not
>> necessarily better.
>
> You know, I really, really dislike the use of a word meaning female to=
> describe a male (and vice-versa),

Do you dislike "maternal grandfather" and "paternal gr= andmother" too?

Not if you mean, respectively= , the "father of the mother of X" and "the mother of the fat= her of X". But in those cases, the word describing the person is, resp= ectively, "grandfather" and "grandmother". The opposite= -gender portion describes the person's child's gender, not theirs.<= br> =A0

>and not because it's prejudicial to
> homosexual relationships- although that is an excellent additional rea= son,
> imo.

It's just a different grouping than in English. English "son= -in-law"
groups the male spouses of the offspring in a single word, whatever
the sex of the offspring, while Lojban "tixspe" groups the spouse= s of
the female offspring in one word, whatever the sex of the spouses.
Both words allow for homosexual marriages, just different ones.

Well, then, it's the different grouping that makes it all= confusing and annoying. The English gloss/keyword/definition is very misle= ading entirely because of that.
=A0

> At this point, "pazyspe" seems like the best option to me. I= don't honestly
> care about the lack of gender specification- we already know he's = a guy.

Right, that's more general.

> So, if {ko'a tixspe ko'e} is {ko'a speni lo tixnu be ko= 9;e}, what is {ko'a
> bersa ko'e ki'u lodu'u speni lo ri panzi}?

But why should marrying someone have to make you the son of their
parents? You could even be older than their parents, which makes
calling yourself their son sound even more strange. Just because
English happens to use the same word for "son" and "son-in-l= aw"
doesn't mean Lojban should.

I suppose you have= a point. I will reiterate that I feel that tixspe should not be translated= as "son-in-law" in the English definition of the word, however, = as it is misleading.
=A0

> Also, why is it that all the familial gismu have a "by bond x3&qu= ot; except bersa
> and tixnu? I hate it when I encounter exceptions like that.

Yes, it's annoying.

> I think from this point, I'm going to start /pretending/ they do h= ave the
> "by bond" x3. So, what's the lujvo for {ko'a bersa k= o'e lo nunspe}?

That would be a stepson, right? Or is it a son-in-law?

Yes. (A very Lojbanic answer, iidssm. )
=A0