The term "brother-in-law" is in the definition. It is not just a bad keyword.
Unfortunately, like so many words, the only existing definition of the word is in English.
Obviously a Lojban definition would not have any such problems.
to pu benji ti fo lo mi me la.android. samcku toi
mu'o mi'e.aionys.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is broken. "brother-in-law" != me'ispe. Saying it does is broken.
>
> Add you said yourself, "brother-in-law" == me'ispe jonai spebu'a.
>
> They are not equivalent, therefore, the definition is broken.
>
A keyword is not a definition. Lots of Lojban words have perfectly
functional definitions and terrible choices of keyword; I'd definitely
put me'ispe in that category, since it's quite clear from the
definition what it means and it is not synonymous with
"brother-in-law."
--
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.