From hfroark@bigmailbox.net Wed Oct 24 16:24:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: hfroark@bigmailbox.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 24 Oct 2001 23:24:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 23594 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2001 23:24:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Oct 2001 23:24:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n35.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Oct 2001 23:24:35 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hfroark@bigmailbox.net Received: from [10.1.10.103] by n35.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2001 23:24:34 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 23:24:31 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Rafsi for "nai"? Message-ID: <9r7ijf+rqeu@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <20011015185959.A843@twcny.rr.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1295 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 204.211.254.24 From: hfroark@bigmailbox.net X-Yahoo-Profile: hfroark Rob Speer wrote: >On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:32:02PM -0000, hfroark@b... wrote: >>I am finding the absence of a rafsi for "nai" in >>connectives problematic. >{nai} is just a shortcut. You could just as well use {na'e nakni je na'e >fetsi}, which if you make a lujvo directly out of it is >{nalnakyjevnalfe'i}. >But, though {je} and friends are very useful in tanru, I feel that if >you need to use them in lujvo to preserve the meaning you want, you're >going at it the wrong way. How about {nalcinse}? Although it's nice to know that it can be done, I suppose that I was taking that unambiguity idea in the wrong way. Incidentally, my English nonce word mono-sexual, I now recall, has been used in some circles to refer to heterosexuals and homosexuals as a group, primarily to refer to what some bisexuals regard as common qualities in both. So my English "word" wasn't unambiguious either. My specific examples came out of playing with the connectives, using the gender words to see what combinations I could get. Some of them seemed fairly useless; for example, the ones involving "ju" seemed to be likely to be the least used ones in tanru and lujvo in general; but I thought that they should all be expressible. >-- >la rab.spir >noi nakyjevnalfe'i .u'i