On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:34 AM, ianek <janek37= @gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think {nu} is good for describing relationships, rather {ka}. When in doubt, you can always use {su'u}. I get the feeling that {nu} is somewhat overused.

{nu} is the NU equivalent of= {lo}. It's never wrong.
=A0

mu'o mi'e ianek

On 5 Gru, 04:33, Michael Turniansky <mturnian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM, tijlan <jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 4 December 2012 10:12, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM, tijlan <jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> On 3 December 2012 04:15, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <park.an...@asb.gaggle.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> How do you get "is dedicated to" = out of "is related to"?
>
> >> >> > I'd like to know that myself.
>
> >> >> If I wrote a book in dedication to koha and made tha= t explicit on a
> >> >> page, a link would have been created between the boo= k and koha.
> >> >> Suppose koha is a high-profile celebrity and my book= happens to be
> >> >> monumentally controversial for its own content; koha= 's manager doesn't
> >> >> appreciate the publicized unduly link and calls me d= emanding that {lo
> >> >> cukta co'u srana ko'a tai zo'e}, where {= zo'e} refers to the fact that
> >> >> koha's name is on the book's particular page= unrelated to the book's
> >> >> topic itself.
>
> >> >> mu'o
>
> >> > Not only is that example extremely contrived, it is also= not an example
> >> of
> >> > srana being "dedicated to", and I highly doubt= any manager would say "A
> >> book
> >> > is completed pertinent to ko'a in the obvious form&q= uot; to yell at someone
> >> for
> >> > putting a name in a book. More likely they'd just sa= y "Why is {name}'s
> >> name
> >> > in you book? I want it out, NOW!"
>
> >> Still, "x1 is dedicated to x2" is a kind of relatio= n, just as "x1
> >> plans x2 for process x3" (platu) is.
>
> > Yes, but neither of those are srana.
>
> =A0 In my opinion the discussion here defines ckini too broadly. =A0sr= ana has a
> broad meaning, and it's basically the relationship that "pe/n= e" has with
> the two sumti have. =A0ckini, on the other hand, is more specifically = a
> kinship relationship. =A0The x1 and x2 would basically have to belong = to the
> same set, or at best one being a member of the superset of the other. = =A0For
> example, I don't think that "la djan" and "lo zdani= be la djan" would
> properly be described as being a ckini relationship, despite the fact = you
> could argue =A0that "la djan ckini lo zdani be la djan lo nu se z= dani" is
> valid and true. =A0But I could say something like "lo mlatu cu ck= ini lo cinfo
> lo nu jutsi". =A0The preceding is just my opinion. YMMV
> =A0 =A0 =A0--gejyspa

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.