From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jul 09 15:25:35 2006
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62)	(envelope-from <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1FzhiG-0000BG-S4	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:25:16 -0700
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62)	(envelope-from <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1FzhiG-0000B9-Hv	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:25:16 -0700
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:25:16 -0700
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: [Anecdote #8] prami jbixa'u
Message-ID: <20060709222516.GR18983@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <471248372.20060708213525@mail.ru> <191514D4-2824-4E82-92E5-80DB8D27E463@umich.edu> <925d17560607080853p5ad59ba1y406851d2251bff20@mail.gmail.com> <1757926858.20060708231910@mail.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1757926858.20060708231910@mail.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 12044
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 Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 11:19:10PM +0700, Yanis Batura wrote:
> On 08.07.2006, 22:53, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 
> > On 7/8/06, Alex Martini <alexjm@umich.edu> wrote:
> 
> >> On Jul 8, 2006, at 10:35 AM, Yanis Batura wrote:
> 
> >> > [ li'o ] .i le jbixa'u cu cinba le fetspe be vo'a ca ro nu
> >> > vo'a xruti le zdani
> 
> >> Should this be {le fetspe pe vo'a}? Jbovlaste gives the x2 as
> >> 'speni3', which is law/custom/tradition/system/convention.
> 
> > Nah, that's clearly a bad definition. There doesn't seem to be
> > any reason to drop the x2 of {speni} in {fetspe}. If one did
> > drop it, it would seem that the meaning of the lujvo would have
> > to be {speni be lo fetsi} instead of {fetsi je speni}.
> 
> I have added the correct definition for fetspe, see jbovlaste
> again: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/fetspe

Erm.  Ignore my belated comment, then.  Sorry.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/


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.