From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Sep 19 15:55:35 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mp8q7-0002Oo-FC for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:55:35 -0700 Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com ([209.85.219.216]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mp8q1-0002Nq-HG for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:55:35 -0700 Received: by ewy12 with SMTP id 12so2012395ewy.0 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:55:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=ve6veGF3dfkADMXCUdpV873O4Elp5ZnNuviMxKTOdgE=; b=e1rFxFyE7a8mqqCvk+I/ljhnlmgxJvajHUCkMakNAOukQwCxzmSOaDQ+zD9eucJhSR F740GsC/Fqj3es5iUxZi1C9cm7hE55CK5U5dGyrPTdkkA0qVhbYU6nFXN0e8UrbrB8Hn 8uxgwUnSMVaFao3K1QT/m2d/58r7cu7JxJ0aI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type; b=lRNhryFKPbE6PaeoQFxq7lKjgjdXTu5sGIo9yFly6xxOWjc1ghYpv44Fiy0tgS3PxG pvSO4kvfiiAB0/7Cc03dJaqXUWiUzWfuZE8KOPLGjFs1IOME0JqnpDMf5NJxuhjc9wdK h0wFnWjfXtijo6WkabZjkWFbUnarE5x16NrRg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.49.17 with SMTP id w17mr849831web.128.1253400923099; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:55:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Brockman Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:55:03 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: aaaf00e692531c9e Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Generic specific sumti To: lojban-list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-archive-position: 16215 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: daniel@brockman.se Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list I wish Lojban had a generic word for a specific sumti, meaning {le co'e}. I guess {le co'e ku} is okay (the terminator is often needed), but it just seems weird to have all these words with specificity implied, but no generic one. We have {le}, {la}, {ti}, {ta}, {tu}, {ri}, {ra}, {ru}, {ko'a}, {ko'e}, {ko'i}, {ko'o}, {ko'u}, {fo'a}, {fo'e}, {fo'i}, {fo'o}, {fo'u}, {dei}, {di'e}, {di'u}, {da'e}, {da'u}, {de'e}, {de'u}, {go'a}, {go'e}, {go'i}, {go'o}, {go'u}, and I guess probably others. So we can allocate all these specific words with implied specificity, but we can't have a generic one with implied specificity. Like I said, it just seems weird. -- Daniel Brockman daniel@brockman.se 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.