Received: from mail-we0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]:42753)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCL-Ey5qiChCSoeH8BBoEebdCVA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SN7u6-0005Xg-J6; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:29:43 -0700
Received: by wera1 with SMTP id a1sf237775wer.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to: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=wr6gc4mI7voA+xat81q44coPGXQdOf5upPptzd4QE3E=;
        b=txcte1tN9jZATUDPkxg52PdYtuCEMNnAbZdiPIftOiEmqwWsJOIY3KoG8rdRtHEH9L
         bhBk8LulFSVvJNi8dclKM9DfEzLty8JPf/4XMwyBfq9+LwwtBRpTo7ZlLfzhHiPozMQc
         5GmRDFgoHsZrGe/xNPaSo+4ahiN2Jn7uReIRY=
Received: by 10.204.132.77 with SMTP id a13mr66180bkt.17.1335382162210;
        Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.156.65 with SMTP id v1ls147322bkw.4.gmail; Wed, 25 Apr
 2012 12:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.154.133 with SMTP id o5mr276816bkw.0.1335382160976;
        Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.154.133 with SMTP id o5mr276815bkw.0.1335382160958;
        Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f45.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f45.google.com [209.85.215.45])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k15si685241bks.0.2012.04.25.12.29.20
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of craigbdaniel@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.45;
Received: by lahe6 with SMTP id e6so456829lah.18
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.100.170 with SMTP id ez10mr2007189lbb.15.1335382160514;
 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.7.98 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMKwHj3_KDm7GD4Cuhg=qu8b3wNkKDbvux5am+1jUi7=v9A4Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3713959.1175.1335276119163.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjb15>
	<22535506.2534.1335343311953.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj38>
	<CAMKwHj1Y=XhahPUzaVMOS+2Uw9uh7VNZ1qay08_UnDm1KMJcHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201204250900.31257.phma@phma.optus.nu>
	<CAMKwHj3chEiJrFg0bJuB9AvuvNeeudn1-CGZBSUjbrE5LoX+yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP=UV6ossgqqF-fbg=VaAAX+Xseesun_FzEyyyto6S2poR7+Jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMKwHj3_KDm7GD4Cuhg=qu8b3wNkKDbvux5am+1jUi7=v9A4Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:29:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP=UV6qm_=YRrrq4BwiiZHvx6OH=jj=rxsoQ-ogaqV6R3dr2-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] me'ispe was Rafybri
From: Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: craigbdaniel@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of craigbdaniel@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted
 sender) smtp.mail=craigbdaniel@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
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: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 05:15:25 Jonathan Jones wrote:
>> >> > The only time I have trouble with a Lojban word, however, is when the
>> >> > meaning is counter-intuitive, that is, when what it means does not
>> >> > seem
>> >> > to
>> >> > fit in with what is used to make it, such as me'ispe. Looking at the
>> >> > word,
>> >> > without knowing the definition, you would think it has something to
>> >> > do
>> >> > with
>> >> > the concepts of "marriage" and "sister", and you may even reach the
>> >> > conclusion that it's talking about someone who is a sister because of
>> >> > a
>> >> > marriage. This makes sense.
>> >> >
>> >> > me'ispe currently means "Brother-in-Law".
>> >> >
>> >> > My line of attack for lujvo like the above isn't to try to memorize
>> >> > the
>> >> > meaning, or to come with some addition to the language that will make
>> >> > it
>> >> > more complicated while seeming to make it more simple (any addition
>> >> > is
>> >> > automatically an increase in complexity), but to /fix/ the /broken/
>> >> > word.
>> >>
>> >> "me'ispe" isn't broken. It means "x1 is married to the sister of x2 by
>> >> custom/bond x3". This is not the same as brother-in-law, which also
>> >> includes
>> >> spebu'a. i la stiv. me'ispe mi .ije mi spebu'a la stiv. i mi me'ispe
>> >> noda
>> >> .ini'ibo mi na speni
>> >
>> >
>> > me'ispe: s1 is a brother-in-law (sister's spouse) of m2 under
>> > law/custom/tradition/system/convention sp3.
>> >
>> > If you look up "brother-in-law", that ^ is what you find. So either the
>> > definition of me'ispe is "brother-in-law" and is broken for reasons
>> > stated
>> > previously, or it isn't and is broken because the definition is wrong.
>> >
>>
>> In English, a brother-in-law can be two types of relatives - a husband
>> of a sibling (that is, most me'ispe and a few bu'aspe), or a brother
>> of a spouse (a spebu'a). The lujvo definition clarifies which kind it
>> means with that parenthetical (sister's spouse), but the gloss
>> "brother-in-law" was very probably written at a time when under all
>> western-world laws that relationship necessarily indicated a man.
>
>
> That doesn't make it any less broken.

It's not broken at all. It's a type of spena, exactly as you would
expect from the form of the word. It's just that, in English, for some
reason we use one term for these two sides of that sort of
asymmetrical relationships, even though we wouldn't do the same with
"uncle" and "niece." Lojban removes the natlang ambiguity; that's kind
of what it's designed to 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.