From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Mon Oct 18 13:32:26 1993
Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:33:58 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:33:50 -0400
Message-Id: <199310182133.AA00303@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 3852; Mon, 18 Oct 93 17:31:51 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 5280; Mon, 18 Oct 93 17:34:39 EDT
Date:         Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:32:26 EDT
Reply-To: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Jorge LLambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: rely
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO
X-Status: 

la and mi fapro la'e di'e

> Contrary to what Jorge has said, "reliable" does not mean "worthy
> of being relied on".

It does not?

> I suggest "snura zei lacri" - safely rely on.
> Reliable is "selnurlacri".

Ok. But it should be "se nurlacri", or "selkemnurlacri".
"selnurlacri" is "selsnura zei lacri".

What I don't like about this is that it suggests that something is
reliable according to some property of the relier, rather than of
the relied on thing. I don't know.


Jorge