Date:         Wed, 21 May 1997 10:57:44 -0400
Reply-To:     "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Caretaker Phrases:  Peek-a-Boo
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  <199705201553.LAA11569@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Mark Vines
              on Tue, 20 May 1997 10:54:36 -0600)
Message-ID: <864226741.0918160.0@vms.dc.lsoft.com>
Content-Length: 1222
Lines: 28

---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Poster:       "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Caretaker Phrases:  Peek-a-Boo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Date:         Tue, 20 May 1997 10:54:36 -0600
>From: Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>
>
>        grandfather = le mampa'u   / le pafpa'u
> nanny / babysitter = le verku'i
>          wet-nurse = le cifku'i
>      family friend = le lanzu pendo
>        housekeeper = le zdaku'i
>
>le jvoste defines {verku'i} as wet-nurse, but I feel
>rather strongly that this term is better suited for a
>nanny or babysitter.  For wet-nurse, I would suggest
>{ladydu'a cifku'i}.  If a shorter word is desirable,
>I'd suggest {cifku'i} for wet-nurse, & {verku'i} for
>nanny or babysitter.

I'd think that over 90% of the time, unless more than one of the above is
present or in recent consideration/conversation, "le kurji" would suffice.
What does it really gain to be more specific if "le kurji" uniquely
identifies the person (from those whom you are likely to be talking about)?

~mark