From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Aug 31 16:47:05 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-1.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.101]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17lHxH-0000gB-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:47:03 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-56.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.56]) by mailbox-1.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 87B5F1F07A for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 01:46:29 +0200 (DST) From: "And Rosta" To: Subject: RE: [lojban] dictionary - which words? Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 00:48:01 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <0208311820150D.03340@neofelis> Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 882 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list > What about {ctelr zei kemxasybakni}? No one would use {kemxasybakni} except > in a zei-lujvo, but one would use {xasybakni} by itself. Should there be an > entry for {ctelr zei kemxasybakni}, or one for {kemxasybakni}? zei creates new lexemes, so "X zei Y" should have its own entry. This is because the meaning of the whole is not wholly derivable from the meaning of the parts. --And.