From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Wed Aug 11 16:29:20 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41902.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.153]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bv2Wt-0005uz-UP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:29:12 -0700 Message-ID: <20040811232840.40209.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.43.74.183] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:28:40 PDT Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:28:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: The Lojban Wikipedia is up To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20040811231952.GP30673@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8427 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 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > "use-function" sounds to me like it prioritizes ease of use over > precision. I think you are talking about use-function of the word, and xod is talking about use-function of the thing that the word describes. I don't think we can make a rule that everything is better described by its function. For example, I wouldn't make a lujvo for "mountain" or "lake" based on the function of mountains or lakes. I don't know whether a lujvo for "software" is better if based on the function of software. In that particular case it might be. But I don't think we can say that in general things are better described by their use-function than by other attributes. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail