Re: [lojban] What's the deal with me'ispe and bunspe?

[Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

  I'm not sure, following this thread, if it has been resolved to your
satisfaction, but the problem is simply that the gloss
"sister-in-law/brother-in-law" is inaccurate.  (to which I can say,
"so what? the gloss of many words is bad. "cinmo" does not mean
"emotion".  It means "feel". "se cinmo" is emotion") So, your sentence
"By the current definitions, a woman who is married to a woman with a
sister is a brother-in-law" isn't accurate.  She is a me'ispe. That
relation is very restrictive compared to English (which uses the same
word for two different relationships (sister of spouse, and wife of
sibling), which doesn't have a word in English to describe it. So,
it's the gloss that you have a problem with, not the definition. (btw,
in Langun, the Loglanesque stub-language I created about 18 years ago,
there are three different words for "brother-in-law", depending on
whether it's "brother of wife", "brother of husband" or "husband of
sister" (although I admit I didn't have "husband of brother"))
                 --gejyspa

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:53 PM, vruxir <kextrii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In a tanru. the x1 (but not necessarily the other places) has to fit the
>>> x1 of both the seltau and the tertau. In this case, that means that both {lo
>>> speni mensi} and {lo mensi speni} must be both {lo mensi} and {lo speni},
>>> i.e. a married sister, a sister who is also a wife.
>>>
>>
>> If the x1 had to fit the x1 of both the seltau and the tertau, then "lo
>> nixli ckule" would be both a girl and a school, and "lo pelnimre tricu"
>> would be both a lemon and a tree.
>>
>> http://dag.github.com/cll/5/2/
>>
>> "The most important rule for use in interpreting tanru is that the tertau
>> carries the primary meaning. A “pelnimre tricu” is primarily a tree, and
>> only secondarily is it connected with lemons in some way."
>>
>>
>> Am I missing a revised rule about tanru? What's your source?
>
>
> I don't remember, honestly. It might've been the LfB, but whatever it is, it
> is apparently wrong and therefore inconsequential.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> By the current definition, {lo me'ispe cu speni lo mensi be lo se speni}:
>>> "x1 is married to the sister of x2", {lo bunspe cu speni lo bruna be lo se
>>> speni}, "x1 is married to the brother of x2".
>>>
>>> As you can see, the current definition isn't based on a tanru either.
>>>
>>
>> Right. The current lujvo definition narrows the meaning past what would be
>> implied by mensi speni / bruna speni, but it is consistent with the tanru
>> (not that it has to be) in making "speni" the primary meaning.
>>
>> mu'o
>
> I see your point. The reason behind {me'ispe} vs. {speme'i} is twofold: One,
> {me'ispe} is already {poorly} defined, so it makes sense to me at least to
> rewrite the definition rather than create a new word that actually means
> what the current definition is intended to mean, and two, {me'ispe} is
> similar to {fetspe}. In the same way that the rafsi of te irks us (as
> opposed to the rafsi of se, ve, and xe), I consider {speme'i} to be irksome.
>
>
> --
> mu'o mi'e .aionys.
>
> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.