[lojban] Re: It is easier for a kumte...

[Evgeny Sklyanin <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 4/29/05, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, John E Clifford wrote:
> 
> >
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/28/05, Robin Lee Powell
> >> <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "kanla" includes "kumte" in its c.f. list:
> >>>
> >>> (cf. jvinu, kerlo, viska, kumte)
> >>>
> >>> What is up with that?
> >>
> >> Whatever it is, it works both  ways, because
> >> "kumte"
> >> includes "kanla" in its cf. list as well:
> >>
> >> (cf. sunla, kanla, xirma, xasli)
> >>
> > A remote possibility: the old word for "camel"
> > was {kamla} and confusion ensued.
> 
> That's what I thought, too, but it turns out not to be the case. Loglan
> "kamla" = Lojban "klama"; and Loglan "kanla" = Lojban "naxle".
> 

OK, here is my suggestion: {kanla} in the cf list for {kumte} was
mistyped for {kanba} which looks quite appropriate: (cf. sunla, kanba,
xirma, xasli). Then the reverse link was automatically transferred to
{kanla}.