Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]:52181)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNTPpI2KGxCNjIH7BBoEMvD0uA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1S7iSt-00006I-KT; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:17:47 -0700
Received: by ggmi2 with SMTP id i2sf2384374ggm.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references
         :in-reply-to:mime-version:message-id:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=nhDWR2AMKLUAeNCe4iGI6NWm8vFUK87giLWksmYnIjA=;
        b=dbHa4mQamRrLcOgvsgnQnSgADXW3Xvht0yBDrJVKesgC83m/At95+ReahzP2RT4UU9
         +QFGGEFItvvyf4RbEWyv2ksCzGzqTjoYBWLZf0TW3V59X0+Us0DiKQalVbXqCmnFd4m2
         6j/qUHrZ1z2YrDjSGLz5mYT1uZRT2o0BZoWrg=
Received: by 10.236.170.135 with SMTP id p7mr264470yhl.19.1331709453553;
        Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.119.195 with SMTP id n43ls1832908yhh.3.gmail; Wed, 14 Mar
 2012 00:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.115.136 with SMTP id e8mr2165813yhh.6.1331709452777;
        Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.115.136 with SMTP id e8mr2165811yhh.6.1331709452767;
        Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chausie (cpe-069-132-101-103.carolina.res.rr.com. [69.132.101.103])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id a33si869185anp.2.2012.03.14.00.17.32;
        Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 69.132.101.103 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) client-ip=69.132.101.103;
Received: from darner.ixazon.lan (darner.ixazon.lan [192.168.7.5])
	by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E69D4216C6
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:17:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] What's the deal with me'ispe and bunspe?
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:17:30 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (DragonFly/3.1-DEVELOPMENT; KDE/4.5.5; i386; ; )
References: <CAMKwHj2h=zOYueZQYN4R9rSJ=FHzUstJaaK4FpxBo69D1sxzxw@mail.gmail.com> <26825034.2813.1330995206153.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbas10> <CAMKwHj2zossaRQWUQa2nY9SNQYE-tV0aWRui++voeZchGUp-4A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMKwHj2zossaRQWUQa2nY9SNQYE-tV0aWRui++voeZchGUp-4A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <201203140317.30620.phma@phma.optus.nu>
X-Original-Sender: phma@phma.optus.nu
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 69.132.101.103 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for
 domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) smtp.mail=phma@phma.optus.nu
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Monday, March 05, 2012 20:34:01 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> One, {me'ispe} is already {poorly} defined, so it makes sense to me at
> least to rewrite the definition rather than create a new word that actually
> means what the current definition is intended to mean, and two, {me'ispe}
> is similar to {fetspe}. In the same way that the rafsi of te irks us (as
> opposed to the rafsi of se, ve, and xe), I consider {speme'i} to be
> irksome.

The rule about lujvo consisting of kinship terms is that, if kinship terms are 
stuck together in a lujvo, the meaning of the lujvo is the relation 
composition (like function composition) of the meanings of the components. So 
"spebunspe" means "is the spouse of the brother of the spouse of". "fetsi" is 
not a kinship term, so the rule does not apply to "fetspe".

Pierre
-- 
gau do li'i co'e kei do

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.