From MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Thu Aug 12 15:31:17 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 26234 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 22:31:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Aug 2004 22:31:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 2004 22:31:16 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BvO4q-0004nD-3c for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:29:40 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BvO46-0004l0-F1; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:28:54 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.36]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BvO3u-0004kJ-Tv for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:28:43 -0700 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.4.) id d.149.307305fd (16335) for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <149.307305fd.2e4d48f7@wmconnect.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:28:07 EDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_149.307305fd.2e4d48f7_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 12 X-archive-position: 8433 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Reply-To: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Subject: [lojban] only one lujvo per concept? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=137764184 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbaner X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22853 --part1_149.307305fd.2e4d48f7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2004-08-12 5:21:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes: > I don't know whether a lujvo for "software" is better if > based on the function of software. In that particular case > it might be. But I don't think we can say that in general > things are better described by their use-function than by > other attributes. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > It sounds to me like there might be a whole range of lujvo for "software" (or any other general concept) based on different aspects of that concept: use/function/origin/purpose/composition/etc. stevo --part1_149.307305fd.2e4d48f7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 2004-08-12 5:21:3= 6 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:


I don't know whether a lu= jvo for "software" is better if
based on the function of software. In that particular case
it might be. But I don't think we can say that in general
things are better described by their use-function than by
other attributes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes=20

It sounds to me like there might be a whole range of lujvo for "softwar= e" (or any other general concept) based on different aspects of that concep= t: use/function/origin/purpose/composition/etc.  

stevo --part1_149.307305fd.2e4d48f7_boundary--