From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Oct 19 16:52:46 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 19 Oct 2000 23:52:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 6569 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2000 23:52:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Oct 2000 23:52:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.32) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Oct 2000 23:52:46 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:52:45 -0700 Received: from 200.42.153.224 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:52:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.153.224] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:literalism Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:52:45 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Oct 2000 23:52:45.0715 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD9B5E30:01C03A27] From: "Jorge Llambias" la xod cusku di'e >We need concrete examples, so I will >invoke my tanru of "mucti minji" which means software. I think it >expresses the concept clearly and concisely yet it violates the "straight >line" aesthetic since it doesn't even contain "skami"! I really don't understand what the straight line aesthetic is supposed to be. In fact, I'm not yet clear which side of the debate I am, because when it comes down to examples they all seem to be good regular ones, like {balre mruli}, or {mucti minji}, which will sit perfectly well along the most regular and systematic lujvo. Why should a word for "software" have to contain {skami} anyway? Those are not fancy metaphors. A fancy metaphor would be something like {tansraku} for a very tall building. Would that be a good lujvo? co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.