From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Oct 13 09:12:11 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CHljO-0001A0-TJ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:12:03 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:12:02 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: game; performer Message-ID: <20041013161202.GF12568@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <87.1896a749.2e9dc6d4@wmconnect.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87.1896a749.2e9dc6d4@wmconnect.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 8703 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 07:46:28PM -0400, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote: > While trying to find an answer to the recent 'sports scores' post, I > discovered that jbovlaste seems to have no way to express the noun > 'game'. le se kelci > It gave > ci'erkei< as "play a game", Ack. Please don't use angle brackets to quote things; it looks horrible in many mail readers. The convention here is curly braces for Lojban. Anyways, I don't see {ci'erkei} in jbovlaste at all. It seems to only be mentioned in the notes for kelci. I think it's a horrible word, and I can't be the only one or someone likely would have added it by now. :-) > I also wonder: How is >le tigni< different from >le tigypre tigni: > Definition: x1 performs x2 [performance] for/before audience x3 > > tigypre: > Definition: x1 is a perform-person with performance x2 with performance > audience x3. That second definition was auto-generated, by the way. > These two words seem to have identical meanings, except the lujvo > specifies that the performer is a person, while the gismu allows > animals, robots, whatever, as the performer. Is that right? That is exactly right, yes. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"