Message-Id: <m0qXeIT-000024C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 8 Aug 1994 19:42:02 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Lojbanizing umlaut
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1369
Lines: 40

la and di'e spusku le sralo lojbo zajba tavla

> > .i mi tavla fi lenu zo rozgu cu gismu .e'a
> > na.e lenu ri .ei gismu mu'i lenu ka'e pe'a zei tavla
>
> ki'a
> (- you spoke not of both 'rozgu' being a gismu and it being
> a gismu because of the possibility of figurative speech ???????)

I didn't understand what he meant when I answered the first time, but
I now think it makes sense. I think it says that he wasn't talking
of "rozgu" being allowed to be a gismu, but of that it should be a
gismu because of its metaphorical use (i.e. he opposed the notion
that the ample metaphorical applications of roses were reason enough
to give it a gismu).

> > .i lenu zo rozgu cu sinxa su'o se tcacynibli cu kulnu steci
> > gi'epe'i na'e mapti le'e lojbo gi'uste
>
> ki'a (sinxa su'o se tcacynibli?)
>
> ko gregau fi mi fe le gotro befi loi mitre beife lo granrdidjeridu

ki'a lo granrdidjeridu
i simlu le ka mutce corgau

> > .isemu'ibo mi stidi lenu toljundi loi jaisecu'u darlu be leka zo
> > rozgu cu .ei gismu kei poi steci leka tcacynibli be'o
>
> I give up. You advocated ignoring advocates of rozgu being a
> gismu, such that this is restricted in the property of being
> a custom-necessitator?

I think he advocates ignoring arguments that "rozgu" should be
a gismu which are specific to the needs of one culture.

> coho, mihe lo toljimpe
>

co'o mi'e lo xabjimpe