[jbovlaste] Re: jbovlaste erroneously states original creator?as the person who edited a definition

[turnip <turnip@bcpl.net>]

>===== Original Message From Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> 
=====
>On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 12:35:40PM -0400, turnip wrote:
>> >===== Original Message From Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> 
=====
>> >On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 01:12:56PM -0400, turnip wrote:
>> >> to xelfanva seva'u lo prenu poi na'e selbau la gliban toi
>> >> go'i ji'una'iku
>> >
>> >ji'u na'i ku ki'a sai
>>
>>    See refgram Chapter 15, section 10:
>> >Presupposition failure can be marked directly if the presupposition is 
overt;
>> >if not, one can insert a ``mock presupposition'' to question with the 
sumti
>> >tcita (selma'o BAI) word ``ji'u''; ``ji'uku'' thus explicitly refers to an
>> >unexpressed assumption, and ``ji'una'iku'' metalinguistically says that
>> >something is wrong with that assumption. (See Chapter 10.)
>
>Huh.  OK.
>
>> >
>> >> .i  lo ka ce'u banro je selci'i pe la lojban
>> >
>> >"(The property of growing and being someone interested in things)
>> >associated with Lojban."
>> >
>> >ki'a
>>
>> Yes.  The property of being (a-grower-and-interested-thing),
>> associated with lojban.  What's wrong with that?
>
>It doesn't make any sense.  The fact that something is becoming
>physically larger has no relationship to their being interested in
>things.  And even if it did, I don't have any idea what the poperty
>of being "something increasing in size and interested in things"
>means.

  ??  Who says that the two terms in a jek have to have a relationship to one 
another?  "ti blanu je zdani" is perfectly valid.  This is a blue-and-house 
thing.  This is a "ka ce'u banro pe la lojban", a growth (of an unspecified 
something) associated in some way with lojban, and a "ka ce'u selci'i pe la 
lojban", an interest (by an specified something) asssociated in some way with 
lojban.


>
>If you were trying to talk about the *group* of Lojbanists growing,
>it didn't work.  I'm not sure banro applies, but even if it did,
>that would be "lo nu loi lojbo remna cu banro" or something.
>
>> >> simsa lo falrenzdi
>> >
>> >zo falrenzdi na cmima la jbovlaste .i ko cuxna lo te sumti smuni
>> >ku gi'a pilno lo tanru
>>
>> lo falrenzdi cu trene fo loi velfa'u joi lo linsi poi mo'iga'u
>> lacpu ku  mu'i lo nu zdile lo selma'e
>
>That's nice, but is not what I asked you to do: I asked you to
>create a complete definition, including all the sumti places.  All
>you've done here is explain the x1.  If you're not going to come up
>with a full definition, don't use a lujvo.

  I'm sorry, suddenly the use of non-specified nonce lujvo is forbidden?? 
Let's see.. let's look at an example of something by some guy named "Robin 
Powell":  I see "ralcinfra" used several times in "nicte cadzu" with no 
listing in jbovlaste, no explanation of what the word means, no place 
structure definition, no indication that it's a nonce term.  ditto "bavlamji", 
"tacsa'e" (which I assume is a typo for "tacysa'e"), etc. etc.  Need I go 
on????

  Actually, my defintion above was more in response to your question below, of 
the derivation.....

   I didn't need to specify more than the x1 place, because that's all I used.
 But if you really want me to:

  falrenzdi x1=t1 is a roller coaster at amusement park x2=t3 propelled by 
motive force x3=t4

>
>> >"fall train amusing"?  ki'a sai
>
>Still ki'a sai
 (see above)
             --gejyspa