From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Apr 10 09:13:28 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HbIxq-00035Y-Gl for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:13:02 -0700 Received: from express.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.16]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HbIxi-00035I-Pj for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:13:01 -0700 Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (hive.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.14]) by express.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id l3AGCg6K022018 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:12:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l3AGCgin018676; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:12:42 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id l3AGCf0E018673; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:12:42 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: hive.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:12:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: nutcracker and nutpick In-Reply-To: <2707A4F5-51EA-40CB-87CD-1ACA4D7C6751@mindspring.com> Message-ID: References: <2707A4F5-51EA-40CB-87CD-1ACA4D7C6751@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: -25 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13678 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Cortesi wrote: > > On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:21 AM, Pierra Abbat wrote: > > >a nutpick is clearly a cfinyvra (crowbar, but more generally any lever with a > >wedge at the end). > > Um, isn't {cfinyvra} at least a bit aurally ambiguous because of > cfila/cfi x1 is a flaw/fault/defect in x2 causing x3 {cfinyvra} is perfectly fine. I don't really see the problem you think you see, but there's no way {cfinyvra} could be misinterpreted unless it's mispronounced (and anything could be mispronounced badly enough to sound like something else). > Anyway consider {kapkavra} (or {vralkapka}?), a digging lever. *{kapkavra} is wrong in several ways. It breaks up as rafsi {kap} (from {skapi}) and {kavra} (which doesn't exist). {kakpa} (not *{kakpa}) doesn't have any (nontrivial) rafsi, so you want {kakpyvra}. *{vralkapka} isn't legal either. You don't need a hyphen, just use {vrakakpa}. > vernagvralkapka, "x1 is a nut-meat-lever-digger-outer"? Truly {to'e melbi} > > >Or a nutcracker could be a cinzyvra. What do you think? > > As cinze is already a tool, {cinzyvra} would be somewhat redundant. > Did you perhaps intend {nagcinze}, nut type of pliers? {nagycinza} seems appropriate. ({cinza}, not {cinze}, and gc is a voiced-unvoiced pair). -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ All of our customer service representatives are on vacation. Please hold for the next available representative. 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.