From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Oct 20 16:11:48 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 20 Oct 2000 23:11:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 24736 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2000 23:11:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Oct 2000 23:11:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.247) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2000 23:11:22 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:11:22 -0700 Received: from 200.42.118.177 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:11:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.118.177] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:literalism Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:11:22 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2000 23:11:22.0216 (UTC) FILETIME=[0FBD3E80:01C03AEB] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >And what is special about the last place? The last component of a lujvo is special in one respect, the x1 place of the lujvo will correspond with the x1 place of the last component. That is not really a prescriptive rule as much as a descriptive one. It would be interesting to see if there are exceptions. That is why I think for example that a lujvo that means "drowns" can't possibly end in -mro, because {morsi} means "dead" not "dies", so even though the ideas are certainly related, the actual meaning of the word is important. The lujvo in -mro could mean "drowned", but not "drowns". "Becomes dead" can't be {binxymorsi}, it has to be {morsybinxo}. Are these really totally unfounded rules? 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.