[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[jbovlaste] Re: out of control
- To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
- Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: out of control
- From: "A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 10:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
- Delivery-date: Fri, 07 May 2010 10:52:33 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rogers.com; s=s1024; t=1273254705; bh=+j0y9iQRRlkgv3appJP3x4f90MfvQhpklbT004Y0qKA=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=qUtK6ZxSk3kQCCXOCPIW8Z+Jy+oEwx6e2ce+J37nzaQXkOeAJWIaUlmbj9znpkNwLK84hSuOoM9zGodbZPyvKMKO/lw1OrVUenXCcLe2hlk5P0M3IWkkLiY9N4D13fpiv5EfBp0r0+AoDtjqeBnMFZLx4GcdMwnhF01Xg12lTtk=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=LiMLlS3WNldcL2GM/y+COdTdF13Nhlonz24B1HjPzj3xKVe9BC08X2Ip511KFwBBBgJwS/QlZle8M5tkgad6KdRXXjOqkWkOIafKQQGqG9eGbn0nEfd5deTMyNfkcavntFaan+y3QRcJu3lLS91nkjZ01wNMPfKk1ufJorc7JKs=;
- Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
- In-reply-to: <20100507173217.GE29740@nvg.org>
- References: <p2o5715b9301005070915re6cfa24dj20d546f18b00f2df@mail.gmail.com> <20100507173217.GE29740@nvg.org>
- Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
- Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
----- Original Message ----
> From: Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>
> To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
> Sent: Fri, May 7, 2010 1:32:17 PM
> Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: out of control
>
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:15:06PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote:
> I'm reading
> through the new Berenstain Bears translation and noticed
>
> {tolse'itro}. Because of left grouping this implied to me that x1
> was
> controlling someone that is the polar opposite of himself when I
> think the
> intent is that x1 is the polar opposite of controlling
> himself. Given this,
> wouldn't this make more sense as
> {toltrose'i}?
Jvajvoically, it would be {sezytoltro}. {toltrose'i} looks
> more like it should be “an out-of-control self”.
> Why was this form
> chosen?
I can only guess that someone started with {se'itro}, and just
> tacked on a tol- to invert it without thinking about it much, since that the
> usual way of doing that with gismu.
That's excactly what happened. I understand that if a lujvo already exists,
it's OK to do that.
totus