From ragnarok@pobox.com Sun Sep 09 16:49:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 9 Sep 2001 23:49:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 33422 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2001 23:49:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Sep 2001 23:49:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.246) by mta3 with SMTP; 9 Sep 2001 23:49:58 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.34] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A04AA7680076; Sun, 09 Sep 2001 19:50:34 -0400 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Antelopes Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 19:49:57 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <0109091921452Z.05217@neofelis> X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" >What should we call antelopes? They belong to the family Bovidae (I am not >including the pronghorn antelope, which is not an antelope despite the name) >but several subfamilies. Bovidae also include lo kanba e lo bakni e lo lanme, >so it's not obvious what gismu to base a type-3 fu'ivla on. {antilope} is a >valid type-4, but I'm not sure it's wise to have a word for "antelope" since >it doesn't correspond to anything taxonomic. Base it on bovni. I think you already know my views on fu'ivla, but for those that don't, I feel they should only be used when necessary, such as for taxonomy, and that the lower the type the better. Please don't use .antilope, use bovnrntelopi or whatever for the specific subfamilies - I dislike type 4s AND think that, as you point out, .antilope is rather malglico. --la kreig.daniyl. 'segu le bavli temci gi mi'o renvi lo purci .i ga le fonxa janbe gi du mi' -la djimis.BYFet xy.sy. gubmau ckiku nacycme: 0x5C3A1E74