[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Possible error in {binxo}
- To: "Lojban list" <lojban-list@lojban.org>
- Subject: Possible error in {binxo}
- From: "komfo,amonan" <komfoamonan@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:03:22 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:x-google-sender-auth; b=H3kYqxEDjZ8ttlugXf8CoPoXz3XGGXwfyRJQxWDF/fcLbpU9McHPU2qcUKHYMaJfVtuQeRYN35sUozElSlUhHeL/iIliVlYARtBIm56KRnV5kXs/upIEEQpIy5SP/5u6ws2FSHvpCY9aJzl+vArQNy9Af90k//kl1c73hw6jcQc=
- Sender: nobody <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>
coi jbopre
I think I found an error in a parenthetical in the definition of {binxo}. First I made a little table of the causality/resultativity values of the four "change" gismu -- binxo, cenba, galfi, stika -- which I include below (Note that the "NO"'s in the Causal column stand for "not necessarily"):
Causal Resultative
binxo NO YES
cenba NO NO
galfi YES YES
stika YES NO
Then I checked the "cf." list for each gismu & found the discrepancy. In the "cf." list for {binxo}, {stika} is listed as non-causal, whereas it's actually causal.
I poked around to see if anyone had addressed this & couldn't find a reference to it.
mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan
--
http://laxmahispajispaji.blogspot.com/
ro re'u se galfi de'i li 05 pi'e 30