From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jan 01 06:57:50 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 01 Jan 2008 06:57:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J9iYv-0000Cp-ID for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 06:57:49 -0800 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J9iYr-0000Cf-2z for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 06:57:49 -0800 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so2591659fga.0 for ; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 06:57:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=JDqIfvdLJJXjO6J5UdpjnnyMztH0nqTCe9BGcw2DJhU=; b=pU+WoWE+qdeM0kjgiBUoiJ7b0av49cPvvOELZP9p+khgUsm1dTGhZ8uVpI1bCzWRHYNk8giTlfEm8RqirCLZHYxFlpOgyZRxo9b84M2LpRi+o0UharOPeIavm2Xke0nMNEX05QH76YcJTeqir2ni8DLjMEa+YDbSfFVMs14xWcA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=JLISlaAM0SsA6lMFHVbX0XEILu3y5aXreFF7hC8UbvmU/GtBI+azzb1kUqw62ReUqbepjnL5F5dcRupdqHFd0hy7H2hm48SG5Sau0uJd5WXCyqT8o4EFgs3pW+I6kJR4PQ7l8JeNLaQwxeGfKZDLtEMEnxlJiUUSBidnrlKtucg= Received: by 10.86.74.15 with SMTP id w15mr12505592fga.43.1199199463406; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 06:57:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.27.19 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 06:57:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560801010657x57aaaac5wc093ad73cdb11882@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 11:57:43 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: confusing gismus In-Reply-To: <4779D5C7.5090804@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <2f91285f0712300908l379651c5o91cde87e8b81960e@mail.gmail.com> <20071230110938.lvwyvup5kwsc04g4@webmail.ixkey.info> <925d17560712301407j353e0f17j264267c967937b91@mail.gmail.com> <20071230144732.4i70hzzqosk4ogcs@webmail.ixkey.info> <925d17560712310340j7a5cdf55l639a87dc1afd6c59@mail.gmail.com> <47793898.6090100@lojban.org> <925d17560712311241h2976efbcx3cc2d633900a3a2c@mail.gmail.com> <4779D5C7.5090804@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 106 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Jan 1, 2008 2:55 AM, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > I don't think I have thought of skapi as necessarily detached, though it > can be. But I do think of it as being a distinct organ/body part of an > animal with all the range of functions applicable to that organ, which > are more than mere protection. Ok, but most (all?) other body parts are defined as "of x2", not "from x2". Compare for example with kerfa, pilka and sunla: kerfa: x1 is a/the hair/fur [body-part] of x2 at body location x3. pilka: x1 is a crust/rind/peel/skin/hide/outer cover of x2. sunla: x1 is a quantity of/made from/consists of wool [tight curly hair] from animal/species/source x2 skapi: x1 is a pelt/skin/hide/leather from x2. > If actual usage has limited skapi's meaning to that of the material > derived from the body organ of a (hopefully dead) animal, I could > probably live with it. I was just going by the definitions, but usage seems to have gone against the definitions. > But Nora and I both think that the place > structure wording does not exclude the body part/pilka role. Doesn't the "from x2" wording exclude it? Or, if it doesn't, why have it at all? > JCB had two words pelpi and skapi (which confusingly are our > skapi and pilka, respectively), and I don't think his definitions > were any clearer. He has: PELPI: X is a hide/skin/piece of leather from animal Y. n hide - a piece of leather from animal ... a hide - made of leather n leather - a pelt/piece of pelt from ... a leather - made of leather n pelt - animal skin/piece of leather from ... a skin - made of skin/leather SKAPI: X is the skin/rind/outer-covering of Y, general term. n hide - skin of living organism ... n rind - the skin/outer covering of ... n skin - the outer covering of ... So it seems pretty clear that one is a material and the other is a body part. His adjective def. of PELPI has "made of", his noun use has "from", and it always mentions leather which is not a body part. mu'o mi'e xorxes