On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 13:32 -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On 10/30/06, Yanis Batura <ybatura@mail.ru> wrote:
> > On 30.10.2006, 20:28, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> >
> > > I would suggest menli+stika+xukmi, since presumably the chemical
> > > does not change the mind into something else, but rather just alters
> > > some of its properties.
> >
> > Hmmm... you've objected against {galfi} in two consecutive letters. Is
> > that a coincidence?
>
> I had commented on "edit" before Gustav's post, so yes. Or perhaps
> if I had not been thinking of {galfi} recently I would not have commented
> on this one, so no. :)
>
> In any case, {galfi} means changing something into something else,
> and {stika} means changing something in some aspect, but such that
> the something remains the same something. If we always use {galfi}
> there's not much point in having the distinction.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
I am actually inclined to agree with xorxes here. Reading a bit more it
makes sense to use stika rather than galfi. The lujvo was rather thrown
together.
Another point is everybody happy with
{mentikxu'i}: x1 is a mind-changing-chemical with effect x2
or can somebody think of better places?
--
Gustav van der Merwe <gvdm@paradise.net.nz>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part