Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qnwOq-00005YC; Fri, 23 Sep 94 01:13 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5789; Fri, 23 Sep 94 01:12:28 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5788; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 01:12:14 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1299; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 00:10:22 +0200 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 09:41:17 +1200 Reply-To: Chris Handley Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Handley Subject: How do we say this? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1334 Lines: 37 Hi all, A friend posted this to me: =One of our guys is working on a Test Specification document which =will be used for the formal testing and acceptance of a software =project soon to be installed. In the document he says things like = = "test B is dependent on test A" = =ie test B will only be carried out if test A passes. B could be =classed as one of A's dependants, but he wants to know what A's relationship =to B is. = =(B is subordinate to A, A is superordinate to B? Mmmmm...doesnt have =a good ring to it, does it) = =PS: Your children are your dependants. You are their what? =PPS: Father is not the answer I want! I would have used 'contingent' rather than 'dependent', but no matter. Point is, can we express the inverse relationship easily in English (I can't yet), or in Lojban? Chris Handley ====================================================================== Chris Handley chandley@otago.ac.nz Dept of Computer Science Ph (+64) 3-479-8499 University of Otago Fax (+64) 3-479-8529 Dunedin, NZ ______________________________________________________________________ "One needs to know a lot more to remain silent than to keep talking" Fynn, Anna and the Black Knight