From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 20 15:04:09 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FsoJk-0005V9-V4 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:03:29 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FsoJd-0005TH-J4 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:03:28 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so1426838ugd for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:03:22 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:x-google-sender-auth; b=H3kYqxEDjZ8ttlugXf8CoPoXz3XGGXwfyRJQxWDF/fcLbpU9McHPU2qcUKHYMaJfVtuQeRYN35sUozElSlUhHeL/iIliVlYARtBIm56KRnV5kXs/upIEEQpIy5SP/5u6ws2FSHvpCY9aJzl+vArQNy9Af90k//kl1c73hw6jcQc= Received: by 10.78.58.11 with SMTP id g11mr3012414hua; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.33.3 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <12d58c160606201503m3fa993c2t20d260971d90af7d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:03:22 -0400 From: "komfo,amonan" To: "Lojban list" Subject: [lojban] Possible error in {binxo} MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7895_11139951.1150841002850" X-Google-Sender-Auth: c26254272fd35145 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-archive-position: 11806 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: komfoamonan@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_7895_11139951.1150841002850 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline coi jbopre I think I found an error in a parenthetical in the definition of {binxo}. First I made a little table of the causality/resultativity values of the four "change" gismu -- binxo, cenba, galfi, stika -- which I include below (Note that the "NO"'s in the Causal column stand for "not necessarily"): Causal Resultative binxo NO YES cenba NO NO galfi YES YES stika YES NO Then I checked the "cf." list for each gismu & found the discrepancy. In the "cf." list for {binxo}, {stika} is listed as non-causal, whereas it's actually causal. I poked around to see if anyone had addressed this & couldn't find a reference to it. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan -- http://laxmahispajispaji.blogspot.com/ ro re'u se galfi de'i li 05 pi'e 30 ------=_Part_7895_11139951.1150841002850 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline coi jbopre

I think I found an error in a parenthetical in the definition of {binxo}. First I made a little table of the causality/resultativity values of the four "change" gismu -- binxo, cenba, galfi, stika -- which I include below (Note that the "NO"'s in the Causal column stand for "not necessarily"):
      Causal  Resultative
binxo   NO        YES
cenba   NO        NO
galfi   YES       YES
stika   YES       NO
Then I checked the "cf." list for each gismu & found the discrepancy. In the "cf." list for {binxo}, {stika} is listed as non-causal, whereas it's actually causal.

I poked around to see if anyone had addressed this & couldn't find a reference to it.

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan
--
http://laxmahispajispaji.blogspot.com/
ro re'u se galfi de'i li 05 pi'e 30 ------=_Part_7895_11139951.1150841002850-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.