Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]:38936) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SNC9S-0007Je-AZ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:43 -0700 Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3sf606977yen.16 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:31 -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:from :date:message-id:subject: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=UyvALkkClA/7aR2GvDNKw0UEnPG1EZLbPWaAeWr5j4k=; b=Q/QcfSJUyBAByHQYjc8VsqcEJF8Uds2STYDHx2M1w57AHoa6VIxuRVc/uIUczkKhVQ XYPpieHYmcslCS+7AZe4WYSz6H+rp1US3ZFyDmz6yCvvlNINhhCgc/Y1vXcc37OSZkWq fZUYpZDBIVtBPhSiBt30pZEZM3mt4kVoSMSmI= Received: by 10.52.36.136 with SMTP id q8mr100433vdj.17.1335398491516; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:31 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.72.9 with SMTP id z9ls256500vdu.7.gmail; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.89.73 with SMTP id bm9mr8916510vdb.3.1335398489990; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.89.73 with SMTP id bm9mr8916509vdb.3.1335398489974; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f46.google.com (mail-vb0-f46.google.com [209.85.212.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cb10si695274vdb.2.2012.04.25.17.01.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.46; Received: by vbbff1 with SMTP id ff1so498761vbb.19 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.154.130 with SMTP id o2mr4588711vcw.57.1335398489615; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.75.104 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:01:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jacob Errington Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:01:09 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] me'ispe was Rafybri To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: nictytan@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nictytan@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0435bfde9b6f1b04be89b0c1 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --f46d0435bfde9b6f1b04be89b0c1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The lojban definitions would certainly look like this: i lo ka me'ispe cu ka ce'u speni lo mensi be ce'u ce'u -> x1 is the spouse of the sister of x2, by spouse-bond x3. i lo ka spebu'a cu ka ce'u bruna lo speni be ce'u ce'u -> x1 is the brother of the spouse of x2, by brother-bond x3. Now, for me'ispe, if A is married to B's sister, then A must be male, according to Bad Western Tradition. A is thus B's brother-in-law, e.g. if I'm married to your sister, I'm your brother-in-law. [i fu'e mu'a mi speni lo mensi be do i mi me'ispe do fu'o] For spebu'a, if A is the brother of B's spouse, then A must be male (by virtue of being a brother of someone) and is also B's brother-in-law. e.g. if I'm your spouse's brother, then I'm your brother-in-law. [i fu'e mu'a mi bruna lo speni be do .i mi spebu'a do] I do all my Lojban definitions this way. (I've been doing quite a few lujvo definitions like this.) It seems like producing a definition this way almost always yields a jvajvo result. Does this clear anything up? mu'o mi'e la tsani On 25 April 2012 17:03, Jonathan Jones wrote: > The term "brother-in-law" is in the definition. It is not just a bad > keyword. > > Unfortunately, like so many words, the only existing definition of the > word is in English. > > Obviously a Lojban definition would not have any such problems. > > to pu benji ti fo lo mi me la.android. samcku toi > > mu'o mi'e.aionys. > On Apr 25, 2012 2:59 PM, "Craig Daniel" wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jonathan Jones >> wrote: >> > It is broken. "brother-in-law" != me'ispe. Saying it does is broken. >> > >> > Add you said yourself, "brother-in-law" == me'ispe jonai spebu'a. >> > >> > They are not equivalent, therefore, the definition is broken. >> > >> >> A keyword is not a definition. Lots of Lojban words have perfectly >> functional definitions and terrible choices of keyword; I'd definitely >> put me'ispe in that category, since it's quite clear from the >> definition what it means and it is not synonymous with >> "brother-in-law." >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- > 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. > -- 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. --f46d0435bfde9b6f1b04be89b0c1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The lojban definitions would certainly look like= this:

i lo ka me'ispe cu ka ce'u speni lo mensi be ce'u ce'u -&g= t; x1 is the spouse of the sister of x2, by spouse-bond x3.
i lo ka spebu'a cu ka ce'u bruna lo spen= i be ce'u ce'u -> x1 is the brother of the spouse of x2, by brot= her-bond x3.

Now, for me'ispe, if A is married to B's sister, then A must be mal= e, according to Bad Western Tradition. A is thus B's brother-in-law, e.= g. if I'm married to your sister, I'm your brother-in-law. [i fu= 9;e mu'a mi speni lo mensi be do i mi me'ispe do fu'o]=A0
For spebu'a, if A is the brother of B's = spouse, then A must be male (by virtue of being a brother of someone) and i= s also B's brother-in-law. e.g. if I'm your spouse's brother, t= hen I'm your brother-in-law. [i fu'e mu'a mi bruna lo speni be = do .i mi spebu'a do]

I do all my= Lojban definitions this way. (I've been doing quite a few lujvo defini= tions like this.) It seems like producing a definition this way =A0almost a= lways yields a jvajvo result.

Does this c= lear anything up?

mu'o mi'e la tsani

On= 25 April 2012 17:03, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wro= te:

The term "brother-in-law" is in= the definition. It is not just a bad keyword.

Unfortunately, like so many words, the only existing definition of the w= ord is in English.

Obviously a Lojban definition would not have any such problems.

to pu benji ti fo lo mi me la.android. samcku toi

mu'o mi'e.aionys.

On= Apr 25, 2012 2:59 PM, "Craig Daniel" <craigbdaniel@gmail.com> wrote:<= br type=3D"attribution">
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is broken. "brother-in-law" !=3D me'ispe. Saying it d= oes is broken.
>
> Add you said yourself, "brother-in-law" =3D=3D me'ispe j= onai spebu'a.
>
> They are not equivalent, therefore, the definition is broken.
>

A keyword is not a definition. Lots of Lojban words have perfectly
functional definitions and terrible choices of keyword; I'd definitely<= br> put me'ispe in that category, since it's quite clear from the
definition what it means and it is not synonymous with
"brother-in-law."

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

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

--
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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--f46d0435bfde9b6f1b04be89b0c1--