From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Mar 10 15:57:50 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_1); 10 Mar 2003 23:57:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 11366 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2003 23:57:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Mar 2003 23:57:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 23:57:50 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18sX9R-0005Rl-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:57:49 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18sX9J-0005RQ-00; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:57:41 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:57:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18sX99-0005RD-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:57:31 -0800 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id A64A2CE30172; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:56:58 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: use of mabla Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:56:57 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20030310224157.GA3547@mit.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] X-archive-position: 4418 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Craig" Reply-To: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> I see nothing worng with it. However, I would find it counterintuitive - Iff >> malnitcu had not previously been defined, I would guess its meaning at "that >> darn needer!" or some such. But, giving it a different definition is >> perfectly fine, and 'addict' seems to fit. >I don't see anything counterintuitive about it. I wouldn't read >"malbroda" as "darn broda", but "mabla broda" could be read that way. >Since it's "malnitcu" being defined and not "mabla nitcu", I think it's >a perfectly good definition. IFF malbroda had no previous definition, you would expect it to be much like how you would guess mabla broda would be intended. However, malnitcu is now defined, so there is not any problem.