From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Sep 12 20:17:52 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mmfb5-0002Le-Pu for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:17:52 -0700 Received: from mail-iw0-f201.google.com ([209.85.223.201]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mmfb1-0002JF-2q for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:17:51 -0700 Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so960462iwn.25 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:17:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=6lhjzj2yjCanArjVRq4N7ck+xQA1bORfWwh6xx3IS8I=; b=a0xCUXuD/+lb6nLx6V+cbPapmY3JOLA++zq9MBQ8+4Doyix8nkVWAYLPBEp1hup+WT U5KoW676MLbR2nxXFoPYUweWu4YVkyDexG70rZp1wQOXxrei1f3A2qT6TxvqM6fNfYmA JL8r87oJ0g+ZngY+zKZnp/hGoktF9JkHsYKTY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=coDD7WP2XS42EprwhEOzpuF4+qPkZxwTn0RduglKBTyef8hF3BnTyLjT6PpBjwxIov 7cbvqbCZdMnL3+JqFPc60WxBClxOxYSEYWU7J6O2XZIGioNY1zCEVG70d04NX5UVE6Vs ObUxk2P47/DVeYy8x+NBcC1/xwj/k3ktJNQLc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.25.160 with SMTP id z32mr9779486ibb.5.1252810632231; Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:57:12 -0400 Message-ID: <425e4ac20909121957k10d645a2o8d2c5a03bc3e7c59@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] zo xi From: Stela Selckiku To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-archive-position: 16165 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: selckiku@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:45 PM, stevo wrote: > > Is "daxipa" distinct from "da"? I would think so, but you started with > "daxire", and I don't know why. Hmm, well here is how I think of it: There are an infinite number of da/de/di/ko'a/fo'a/etc available, because you can use anything as a subscript. You don't have to start anywhere in particular; it would be fine to start with da xi ci ze mu. While I would agree with you that plain "da" is not necessarily identical to any particular subscripted "da", it's also not necessarily unidentical to them! So while I believe that our practice of starting with a subscripted two is more of a habit than a rule, the reason for the habit is just to make it abundantly clear that you are making a second distinct reference. Now that you mention it, I think it's possible that making daxipa conventionally identical to da could be helpful or at least aesthetically pleasing-- "daxipa" vs "daxire" being more balanced than "da" vs "daxire"-- but we so rarely get up to that many references in nonhypothetical situations that it's hard to actually test things out. mi'e la stela selckiku mu'o 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.