[jbovlaste] Re: eyeglasses vs contact lenses vs etc

[Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>]

And even if it was used a lot in the past to mean "eyeglasses" is it necessary that it have that specific of a meaning?  If I've spent the last year using {gerku} to refer to "golden retrievers" and someone makes the correction that {gerku} is more general than that, it doesn't break the old usage.  I can still use {gerku} to talk about "golden retrievers" just like we can still use {le'otci} to talk about "glasses" (allowing for context to add the specificness).

Am I right?

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM, A. PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:

----- Original Message ----
> From: Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>
> To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
> Sent: Thu, March 4, 2010 8:51:15 AM
> Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: eyeglasses vs contact lenses vs etc
>
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:22:12PM +0000, tijlan wrote:
> jbovlaste
> currently has {le'otci} for "eyeglasses/spectacles". But
> {le'otci} must
> include also "contact lenses", "hand lenses",
> "telescope lenses", and
> every other types of tool with a lens as its
> main component.

It's
> too late for that. {le'otci} already means “eyeglasses”. If you want something
> that could mean any kind of lens tool, use {lenjo tutci}.

Why is it to late?  Just because {le'otci} is in jbovlaste doesn't mean it's carved in stone.
And I don't see that {le'otci} has been used that much in the past anyway.

totus