mu'o mi'e ianek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > mu'o mi'e ianek
>
> > On 5 Gru, 04:33, Michael Turniansky <
mturnian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Jonathan Jones <
eyeo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:29 PM, tijlan <
jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> On 4 December 2012 10:12, Jonathan Jones <
eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM, tijlan <
jbotij...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> On 3 December 2012 04:15, Jonathan Jones <
eyeo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Annie <
park.an...@asb.gaggle.net
>
> > > >> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> How do you get "is dedicated to" out of "is related to"?
>
> > > >> >> > I'd like to know that myself.
>
> > > >> >> If I wrote a book in dedication to koha and made that explicit on a
> > > >> >> page, a link would have been created between the book and koha.
> > > >> >> Suppose koha is a high-profile celebrity and my book happens to be
> > > >> >> monumentally controversial for its own content; koha's manager
> > doesn't
> > > >> >> appreciate the publicized unduly link and calls me demanding that
> > {lo
> > > >> >> cukta co'u srana ko'a tai zo'e}, where {zo'e} refers to the fact
> > that
> > > >> >> koha's name is on the book's particular page unrelated to the
> > book's
> > > >> >> topic itself.
>
> > > >> >> mu'o
>
> > > >> > Not only is that example extremely contrived, it is also not an
> > example
> > > >> of
> > > >> > srana being "dedicated to", and I highly doubt any manager would
> > say "A
> > > >> book
> > > >> > is completed pertinent to ko'a in the obvious form" to yell at
> > someone
> > > >> for
> > > >> > putting a name in a book. More likely they'd just say "Why is
> > {name}'s
> > > >> name
> > > >> > in you book? I want it out, NOW!"
>
> > > >> Still, "x1 is dedicated to x2" is a kind of relation, just as "x1
> > > >> plans x2 for process x3" (platu) is.
>
> > > > Yes, but neither of those are srana.
>
> > > In my opinion the discussion here defines ckini too broadly. srana
> > has a
> > > broad meaning, and it's basically the relationship that "pe/ne" has with
> > > the two sumti have. ckini, on the other hand, is more specifically a
> > > kinship relationship. The x1 and x2 would basically have to belong to
> > the
> > > same set, or at best one being a member of the superset of the other.
> > For
> > > example, I don't think that "la djan" and "lo zdani be la djan" would
> > > properly be described as being a ckini relationship, despite the fact you
> > > could argue that "la djan ckini lo zdani be la djan lo nu se zdani" is
> > > valid and true. But I could say something like "lo mlatu cu ckini lo
> > cinfo
> > > lo nu jutsi". The preceding is just my opinion. YMMV
> > > --gejyspa
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Lojban Beginners" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >
lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>
> --
> mu'o mi'e .aionys.
>
> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to
lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.