From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue May 24 12:39:51 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 8455 invoked from network); 24 May 2005 19:39:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 May 2005 19:39:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 May 2005 19:39:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DafEu-0003X1-F7 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 24 May 2005 12:38:56 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DafEL-0003WS-4d; Tue, 24 May 2005 12:38:29 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 24 May 2005 12:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DafE3-0003Vt-LU for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 24 May 2005 12:38:03 -0700 Received: from web81303.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.78]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DafDy-0003VZ-IO for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 24 May 2005 12:38:03 -0700 Message-ID: <20050524193841.44497.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.37.184] by web81303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 24 May 2005 12:38:41 PDT Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:38:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1116961637.9031.0.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10031 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: railgun X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24402 So, I shouldn't answer your questions? Getting back to the issue, then, in the long word for "gun", all of the places come from {cecla} and {xarci}. The use of {jinme} for the bullets is either superfluous or inaccurate (if you think that all bullets are metal, then it is the one, if you accept, say, ceramic bullets, the other). If you need to distinguish from other projecting weapons, then guns are the ones that are 1) tubular and 2) work by explosions, i.e., a sudden expansion of a fluid, {xukmi} enters very incidentally into the picture (puffs have priority). If we must have literal lujvo (and I see that CLL has -- against several useful discussions early on and against the Loglan tradition -- pretty much forced that approach), then they should be appropriately sized and accurate. {xumjimcelxa'i} was neither. {celxa'i} is about right, though perhaps a bit short; accuate though. So maybe {tu'urcelxa'i} (nah! still long and awkward) but then we don't have good words for the kinds of projectors, in this case "pop." Of course, the gunner and the gunnee places are the least inherent in a gun and the easiest to replace with prepositions and they come from {xarci}, so working directly on {cecla} would allow some further exposition on type within a reasonable syllable count. --- Theodore Reed wrote: > On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 16:40 -0700, John E > Clifford wrote: > > --- Theodore Reed > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 16:14 -0700, John E > > > Clifford wrote: > > > > Failure to address relevant issue (not to > > > mention > > > > ad hominem response and red herring). > > > > > > I'm not touching any supposed ad hominem, > but, > > > but exactly what is this > > > red herring? > > > > In the ad hominem, the issue of the amount of > > Lojban I have written is raised, presumably > to be > > dealt with, but it is not germane. > > Now who's failing to address the relevant > issue. > -- > Theodore Reed >