Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 07:35:47 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: Beyond Whorf: "things," "qualities," and the origin of nouns and adjectives
Message-ID: <8mdroj+b3qb@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <00080322272100.00884@neofelis>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
Content-Length: 967
Lines: 26

--- In lojban@egroups.com, Pierre Abbat <phma@o...> wrote:
> >Right, I added the /se/ in a last erroneous impulse while posting.
> >Yet, is it real economical to have two gismus for "break/broken" 
> >(porpi/spofu)?!
> 
> lo vorme e lo skami spofu gi'enai porpi
> i lo mudga'a porpi gi'enai spofu

That surely depends on the way I'd treated the door or the computer
with, say, an axe! 
If giving the semantics of /spofu/ by "out of order"/"not (no longer)
functioning", I'd doubt one can say this speaking of a door - it 
usually "functions" (e.g. like a wooden rod)unless it is *broken*
(i.e. crashed/porpi).
IMHO, the semantics behind /spofu/ might be an anglicism, for "my car
is broken (down)" e.g. in German would imply that the dear 
vehicle has fallen to pieces (se porpi). The "universal" German
expression "kaputt" initially also had this sense (from Latin 
"caput": (broken) scull!), but now also is used for "out of function"
etc..

.aulun.