From adam@pubcrawler.org Thu May 29 10:53:19 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 30 May 2003 02:15:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postal.seas.wustl.edu ([128.252.145.2]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19LRaZ-0001AC-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 29 May 2003 10:53:19 -0700 Received: from clarion.cec.wustl.edu (clarion.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.3]) by postal.seas.wustl.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TIAM506123 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 13:10:22 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by clarion.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h4THrDRe003573 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 12:53:13 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: clarion.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:53:13 -0500 (CDT) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: feathered serpent In-Reply-To: <200305291430.h4TEUhxx009839@star2.baremetal.com> Message-ID: References: <200305291430.h4TEUhxx009839@star2.baremetal.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Status: No, -6.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Report: -6.6/5.0 ---- Start SpamAssassin results -6.60 points, 5 required; * -0.0 -- Has a valid-looking References header * 0.0 -- Message-Id indicates a non-spam MUA (Pine) * -0.4 -- Has a In-Reply-To header * -0.4 -- Has a X-Authentication-Warning header * -5.4 -- BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 1 to 10% [score: 0.0733] * -0.4 -- BODY: Contains what looks like a quoted email text * 0.0 -- Reply with quoted text ---- End of SpamAssassin results X-archive-position: 352 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners > I was wondering about this. Instead of feathered serprent, does pimlu since > mean "a snake that *is* a feather" or a "feather-like snake" or what? The beauty of tanru is that they're pretty ambiguous. So {pimlu since} would probably be best translated as "feathersnake" (or more awkwardly, "feather type-of snake"). Definitely a snake, something to do with feathers. > if I say selpimlu since, is that "a creature that has feathers kind of snake" > or how should I think about it? Yeah, that's pretty much the way to think about it. {pimlu since} is correct, there is a relationship between the feathers and the snake, but it's a bit less direct than {selpimlu since}. Or you could be more explicit with {selpimlu je since} or even eliminate the tanru entirely and say what you mean, la ketsylkoatl se pimlu gi'e since but I'd probably use "selpimlu since" myself. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ "Do you have a lighter?" "Why?" "I need to see if this is gasoline." --Charlie Hinderliter