From lojban+bncCOib25n_BhCB5b_tBBoEyqHMLA@googlegroups.com Thu Apr 21 02:02:10 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QCpm1-0001pK-U7; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:02:09 -0700 Received: by vxk20 with SMTP id 20sf621379vxk.16 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:01:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender :date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=7pU8ykOZJz3JoMMJEKuNXXy3SCPuxPLt0LnHT0dYsPc=; b=UOF5+dltgB8UrMHXd7Koe/bOh9bePTEkdSXJpvpHyr9fkfNRY8cFgQQKDy7c/ov6xc CXjKZGAVVZSRHgEuBq6oys85jVDEJmR0oAV9Rua1V6gkxMWOoFUE7oPtuCVkKDerJeeR prhF6M1OPlP52D4ckyRc76K7WHXfOC5pbU5vc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:date:message-id :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; b=ETtlVn4sCLqW3ydDPN2E/WfCNGv81Ghkk66qBUqCCg3arHNwWGh5O3hmb6Kga/c+w3 NTG3pAFXhJGULqG0pdCicRmHBRaaP0ppTLRJV1b3V1qyXMr4dqdx6H6lNtSdd2TjD99Z mMq1DIDvtSPL2ESmsMkEXLT8z1Or1vfeatqm8= Received: by 10.220.63.6 with SMTP id z6mr905259vch.40.1303376513713; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:01:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.114.139 with SMTP id e11ls859958vcq.4.gmail; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.88.231 with SMTP id b39mr2752273vcm.20.1303376512638; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.88.231 with SMTP id b39mr2752272vcm.20.1303376512616; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f48.google.com (mail-qw0-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k17si6288vcp.10.2011.04.21.02.01.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.48; Received: by qwj9 with SMTP id 9so972352qwj.7 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:01:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.188.202 with SMTP id db10mr5989162qab.276.1303376511264; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.28.203 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 05:01:51 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Contesting a lujvo From: ".arpis." To: Lojban X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30334649f667b004a169fd28 --20cf30334649f667b004a169fd28 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Theoretically, this could happen with any word, but it's probably most likely to occur with lujvo. Let's say that, in lojbanistan, {ri'orcinki} refers to a particular species of insects, notable for their green color. Now, let's imagine the dyeing industry discovering that another insect, not particularly notable in appearance, effectively produces a green dye when properly treated. How would the dyeing industry contest the meaning of {ri'orcinki}, if it should so choose? It would, of course, be incorrect to just start referring to the second insect as {ri'orcinki}, but otherwise, I can't imagine that any momentum would be generated otherwise. I also feel like liberal use of {za'e} would be both frustrating and counterproductive (it seems to say, "The other usage is right, but we're saying this anyway). -- mu'o mi'e .arpis. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --20cf30334649f667b004a169fd28 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Theoretically, this could happen with any word, but it's probably most = likely to occur with lujvo.

Let's say that, in lojbanistan, {ri&= #39;orcinki} refers to a particular species of insects, notable for their g= reen color. Now, let's imagine the dyeing industry discovering that ano= ther insect, not particularly notable in appearance, effectively produces a= green dye when properly treated. How would the dyeing industry contest the= meaning of {ri'orcinki}, if it should so choose?

It would, of course, be incorrect to just start referring= to the second insect as {ri'orcinki}, but otherwise, I can't imagi= ne that any momentum would be generated otherwise. I also feel like liberal= use of {za'e} would be both frustrating and counterproductive (it seem= s to say, "The other usage is right, but we're saying this anyway)= .

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--20cf30334649f667b004a169fd28--