On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <park.annie@asb.gaggle.net> wrote:

How do you get "is dedicated to" out of &q= uot;is related to"?

I'd like to = know that myself.
=A0

Besides, someone was trying to say that a more-than-= five-letter word meaos "dedicate". How is that possible, when it&= #39;s not a gismu?

I think you're conf= using "brivla" and "gismu" here. Firstly, gismu are not= the only words in Lojban that mean something. Every native and most borrow= ed words have some kind of meaning. Secondly, there are many different kind= s of brivla besides gismu, tanru, lujvo, and fu'ivla being the most com= mon, but there are other types I don't feel like getting into (, like t= he kind that use {me}).

selra'a is a lujvo formed from the rafsi of {se} (sel-) and {srana}= (ra'a). {se} is a word meaning to switch the first and second places o= f the immediately following gismu.

So, if {srana} means "x_=
1 pertains to/.../is about x₂.", than {se srana} (whi= ch is the same thing as {selra'a}) means "x₁ is what x<= sub>2 pertains to/.../is about."

Again, vlasisku (http://vlasisku= .lojban.org) is extremely useful when it comes to the meanings of words= - that's its entire purpose for existence, actually.

As for {si&= #39;artersku}, that's formed from the rafsi for, respectively, sinma, t= e, and cusku, with the 'r' placed in there for grammatical reasons.= I leave it as an exercise for you to figure out what it means, which is no= t at all difficult to do, as all you need to do is look up the meaning of t= he words.
=A0

Why do you n= eed =A0two words that mean practically the same in Lojbanhis Isn't that= illogicalhis

Sent from my iPod

On Dec 2, 2012, = at 1:05 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, December 2, 2012 10:52:54 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
On Sat, De= c 1, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail= .com> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM, la gleki <= span dir=3D"ltr"><gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, December 2, 2012 1:30:39 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6= :17 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wr= ote:

On 1 December 2012 12:09, ianek <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:=
> This is just what {se srana} or {selra'a} is.

An about, a thematic focus, is more specific than that. cfika2, for instance, may be as much relevant to cfika1 as cfika3 may be -- a work
of fiction cu srana both its plot and its author (and possibly many
other things). Consider:

la .alis. cfika sera'a lo nixli

This doesn't necessarily say that the plot revolves around a girl -- it could as well be saying the work is dedicated to a girl.

I'm sorry, I don't see how anything based on {srana} coul= d possibly mean "dedicated to". You'll have to explain.

Well, may be it's no= t that something is wrong with {sera'a/pe/srana} but rather wrong usage= and/or glossing.

srana=A0x1 pertains to/is ger= mane/relevant to/concerns/is related/associated with/is about x2.

ckini =A0x1 is related to/associated with/akin to x2 by relationshi= p x3.

If we arbitrarily chose parts of those d= efinitions we'd get
=A0 srana x1 is relevant to x2
=A0 ckini = =A0x1 is relevant to x2

which is nonsense.

ckini wo= uldn't be that. For one thing, you left out the x3, and for another, it= isn't "relevant", it's "related". The Cold War= isn't relevant to WWII, but it is related (by being a direct result of= it).
=A0
If {srana} rea= lly gives us thematic role then all the other "is relevant to" me= anings can be assigned to {ckini/seki'i}.