[lojban] Re: origin or composition of soap

["komfo,amonan" <komfoamonan@gmail.com>]

2009/5/22 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
>> de'i li 22 pi'e 05 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Pierre Abbat .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
>>> What is which? xu zbabu la kastilias. lo alzaitu grasu? .ije'i zbabu lo
>>> alzaitu grasu? .i lo jilka cu sumti zo zbabu li xo?
>> .skamyxatra
>>
>> According to the {gismu} list, the x2 of "{zbabu}" is the source and x3 is the
>> composition.  I don't know what suggests to you that it may be the other way
>> around, but unless it's the CLL (which a quick grep seems to indicate that it
>> is not), the answer is pretty clearly "{.ijenai .i ci}."
>
> I think he is asking about what "source" means here. "Source" is
> ambiguous in English. Is the source of the soap the olive oil (the
> substance which the soap comes from), or is it Castille (the place
> where it comes from)? If it's the oil (as I would assume, why would we
> want an argument place for the location where the soap was produced?),
> then what's the difference between the source x2 and the composition
> x3?

Slightly OT: This issue reminds me that for quite some time I have
presumed that what was definitely not done during the language design
period -- but could have been done -- was the construction of an
example bridi for each gismu in which all the gismu-places are
meaningfully filled in. Does anyone know whether this was deliberately
not done? It seems as though it would have been enormously helpful to
us.

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.