Message-Id: <m0qPrwq-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 18 Jul 1994 13:32:42 BST
Reply-To:     C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Subject:      Two corrections
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 904
Lines: 26

ai draga'i 2 le se srera


1. In my mail of JUl 13 about sumti categories, I reproduced John's
comment
>
> > For example, I am quite unsure as to the features of 'banxa'. Consider the
> > feature +/- concrete.
>
> Like Jorge, I believe that "banxa" is -concrete, and that the bank branch
> is a "banxydinju".  This may be influenced because I work for, but not in,
> a bank, and in fact think of the bank branches as rather peripheral parts
> of the bank-entity.
but somehow omitted my answer which was:

I very much prefer that interpretation of 'banxa'. My point was that it
is not clear from the gimste, and I would not be at all surprised if it
had been used with the other meaning before we started being more critical
(cf cukta)

2. In today's posting re ill-formedness, the last example should of course
have read
        lo skacau ke crino sidbo cu vilfengu sipna
(not 'vilfenki')

        Colin