From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Dec 04 09:12:40 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Received: (qmail 63838 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2007 17:12:39 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.96) by m50.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2007 17:12:39 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.9) by mta17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2007 17:12:39 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 2407 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2007 17:12:35 -0000 X-Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 4 Dec 2007 17:12:35 -0000 X-Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IzbJk-0006gG-Fb for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:12:27 -0800 X-Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IzbEb-0005xo-6o; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:07:16 -0800 X-Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:58:03 -0800 (PST) X-Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Izb5t-0005xh-9d for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:58:02 -0800 X-Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.184]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Izb5f-0005xH-Hi for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:57:56 -0800 X-Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so3117232rvf for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:57:37 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.141.129.14 with SMTP id g14mr449293rvn.1196787457548; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:57:37 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.147.16 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:57:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <97f5058c0712040857j6e7e3773l8869fb559b77bf16@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 00:57:37 +0800 In-Reply-To: <925d17560712040746u2568066dlefa262f9d493ef45@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_11199_12292602.1196787457544" References: <97f5058c0712030123l24c3e6bfj5d57187ac9b9eca@mail.gmail.com> <47556C65.9060108@kli.org> <925d17560712040746u2568066dlefa262f9d493ef45@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 1 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 13977 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: spheniscine@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 1 X-Spam-Bar: / To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.9 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: Penguino From: Penguino Reply-To: spheniscine@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Word for "bless" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=dNoyma2DAGM18wGQknIpJ3dw9DIYIt0V87wR0kM9aMfbprKlXw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 28457 ------=_Part_11199_12292602.1196787457544 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Yeah, I agree. The definition should probably be "neutralized", paralleling *cnemu* and *dimna*. On Dec 4, 2007 11:46 PM, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On 12/4/07, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > It's been pointed out to me that {dapma} really > > should be construed to cover both bless and curse, since both involve > > "dooming with words" so to speak. > > If so, the English definition needs serious rewriting. All the words used > (curse/damn/condemn) seem to require a negative fate. The definition > of {dimna}, for instance, makes it clear that it can be used both for > negative or positive fates. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.or= g > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > ------=_Part_11199_12292602.1196787457544 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Yeah, I agree. The definition should probably be "neutralized", p= aralleling cnemu and dimna.

On Dec 4, 2007 11:46 PM, Jorge Llamb=EDas < jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/4/07, Mark E. Shoulson &l= t; mark@kli.org> wrote:
>  I= t's been pointed out to me that {dapma} really
> should be constr= ued to cover both bless and curse, since both involve
> "dooming= with words" so to speak.

If so, the English definition needs serious rewriting. All th= e words used
(curse/damn/condemn) seem to require a negative fate. The d= efinition
of {dimna}, for instance, makes it clear that it can be used b= oth for
negative or positive fates.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send m= ail to lojban-list-reques= t@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you= 're really stuck, send mail to = secretary@lojban.org for help.


------=_Part_11199_12292602.1196787457544--