From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Sep 20 10:57:16 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MpQex-0005Jn-Lh for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:57:15 -0700 Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.100.31]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MpQeu-0005IN-D1 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:57:15 -0700 Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n8KHv03U024687 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:57:00 -0400 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-da01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id d.bd4.4f7ded33 (39329) for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:56:57 -0400 (EDT) From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:57:44 EDT Subject: [lojban] experimental words < Re: Re: Generic specific sumti To: lojban-list@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_bd4.4f7ded33.37e7c718_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 for Windows XP sub 11501 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com X-archive-position: 16227 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 Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_bd4.4f7ded33.37e7c718_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/19/2009 20:37:29 Eastern Daylight Time, daniel@brockman.se writes: > While {zo'e} is generic, it is not specific. In other words, {zo'e} > is totally generic. It has the semantics of {lo}, rather than {le}, > if you will. > > I would like to have a {le ze'ei zo'e}. > I looked up "ze'ei" in my pdf dictionary of Lojban, and it's not there. None of the experimental forms, save some rafsi, seem to be there. It would be really nice to have all of Lojban included in the dictionary. While looking through the experimental cmavo and gismu in jbovlaste, I noticed that "ba'oi" has no selma'o listed with it. Does it belong to ROI, like "mu'ei", which it is compared to? Seven of the experimental cmavo are found in new selma'o: LEhAI (le'ai), LOhAI (lo'ai), SAhAI (sa'ai), ZEhEI (ze'ei), and ZOhOI (la'oi, me'oi, zo'oi). How do these new selma'o fit into the grammar? I also noticed that the experimental gismu "nuzlo" doesn't have a gloss. I suggest "New Zealand". mu'o mie stevon --part1_bd4.4f7ded33.37e7c718_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a messag= e dated 9/19/2009 20:37:29 Eastern Daylight Time, daniel@brockman.se write= s:


While {zo'e} is generic= , it is not specific.  In other words, {zo'e}
is totally generic.  It has the semantics of {lo}, rather than {l= e},
if you will.

I would like to have a {le ze'ei zo'e}.


I looked up "ze'ei" in my pdf dictionary of Lojban, and it's not there= .  None of the experimental forms, save some rafsi, seem to be there.=  It would be really nice to have all of Lojban included in th= e dictionary.

While looking through the experimental cmavo and gismu in jbovlaste,= I noticed that "ba'oi" has no selma'o listed with it.  Does it belon= g to ROI, like "mu'ei", which it is compared to?

Seven of the experimental cmavo are found in new selma'o: LEhAI (le'ai= ), LOhAI (lo'ai), SAhAI (sa'ai), ZEhEI (ze'ei), and ZOhOI (la'oi, me'oi,= zo'oi).  How do these new selma'o fit into the grammar?

I also noticed that the experimental gismu "nuzlo" doesn't have a glos= s.  I suggest "New Zealand".

mu'o mie stevon --part1_bd4.4f7ded33.37e7c718_boundary-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@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.