From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri Apr 23 12:23:44 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41905.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.156]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BH6Gv-0001wi-ET for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:23:37 -0700 Message-ID: <20040423192306.38622.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41905.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:23:06 PDT Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:23:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] traji To: lojban-list@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7573 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list I entered this definition for {traji} in jbovlaste: x1 zmadu fa'u mleca ro cmima be x4 be'o poi na du x1 ku'o x2 do'e x3 noi ka zmadu fa'u mleca I have two questions, one technical and one political. The technical question: Is the definition (mainly the use of fa'u and do'e) understandable? The political question: Do we really want to conflate "most" and "least" into the same word, especially given that in actual use and in all compounds it is always "most"? Is there any advantage at all in having {traji be fi lo ka zmadu} and {traji be fi lo ka mleca} instead of {traji} and {tolrai}? mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash