[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: bumru
Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote: On 8/12/06, Matt Arnold wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Yanis Batura wrote:
> > The second means not fog itself, but the liquid, of which fog is composed.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better that {bumru} had another definition:
> >
> > "x1 is fog covering consisting of x2 and covering x3"
> >
> > Please don't kill me! ;)
> >
>
> "Liquid of which fog is composed" _is_ the fog itself. It cannot _not_
> be fog. {tu se bumru} is precisely what is meant.
I can't think of any example off the top of my head, but I remember
that some gismu have two different places that refer technically to
the same aspect of an object, but from different perspectives. So if
{bumru} did work
like that, it wouldn't be unique among gismu.
Chris Capel
--
Perhaps one ought to use {dilnu} if one wishes to speak of the fog as an object as distinct from its contents.
-sen
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates.