Re: [lojban] Re: mi na zasti

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:

> I think x1 is the fog/mist/vapor and x2 the liquid. At least
> that's what I thought when I translated the definition into
> Spanish:  http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/bumru
> 
> But I see that I left the Esperanto definition in English, 
> probably because I was confused. If x1 is not the fog itself, 
> why is the keyword "fog" instead of "foggy"? But if it is the
> fog, why the strange definition? 

x1 is the foggy region, x2 is the liquid; there is no place for the
fog or vapor itself.  The keyword is "fog" because it's short,
unique, and vaguely relevant, which are the criteria by which the
keywords were assigned.  They are *not* definitions.

To refer to the fog or vapor itself, use febvi or gapci.

-- 
A poetical purist named Cowan           [that's me: jcowan@reutershealth.com]
Once put the rest of us dowan.          [on xml-dev]
    "Your verse would be sweeter        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    If it only had metre                http://www.reutershealth.com
And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan."     [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay