[jbovlaste] Re: le'axru dinsauru

[Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>]

On Friday 05 March 2010 12:38:11 Michael Turniansky wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:59 AM, A. PIEKARSKI <totus@rogers.com> wrote:
> > Comments please.
> >
> >
> > 1) le'axru(take back)
> >
> > lebna: l1 takes l2 (object/property) from l3 (possessor).
> > xruti: x1 (agent) returns x2 to origin/earlier state x3 from x4
> >
> > x1 xruti x2 x3 x4 pu lonu l1 lebna l2 l3
> > x1=l1 le'axru x2=l2 x3 x4=l3
> > x1=l1 takes back x2=l2 to x3 from x4=l3
>
>   I'd get rid of that third argument.  I would assume from "take back"
> that x3 is always "lo nu se ponse vo'a".  Do you have any
> counterexamples in mind?

I agree. Btw, "x1" is the first place of the word you're defining, so if one 
of the components begins with "x", you have to specify another letter: 
x1=xr1=l1 takes back x2=xr2=l2 from x3=xr4=l3.

> > 2) dinsauru(dinosaur)
> >
> > x1 is a dinosaur of type x2
>
>   As long as we're adding this, do you think that maybe "...in era x3"
> would be a useful/fitting addition?  It seems to me that that's an
> often defining charateristic of dinosauria.

Sounds good. Add one to the sheep, the tiger, and the flatfish.

I think this is a better choice than the calque "tepyrespa": "many were small 
and inoffensive, and none were lizards." 
(http://www.curioustaxonomy.net/etym/misnamed.html) I'd have said "dinsauro", 
but I vacillate between "-o" and "-u" for fu'ivla from Latin and Greek second 
declension nouns.

Pierre
-- 
When a barnacle settles down, its brain disintegrates.
Já não percebe nada, já não percebe nada.