No. There was nothing that needed to be cleared = up.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Jaco= b Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:

The lojban defini= tions would certainly look like this:

<= /div>
i lo ka me'ispe cu ka ce'u speni lo mens= i be ce'u ce'u -> x1 is the spouse of the sister of x2, by spous= e-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> w= rote:

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, "C= raig Daniel" <craigbdaniel@gmail.com> wrote:

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 &= 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.

--
mu'o mi= 'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.l= uk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. = :D )