From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Nov 26 13:59:01 2000
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 26 Nov 2000 21:59:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 38425 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2000 21:59:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Nov 2000 21:59:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Nov 2000 21:59:00 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.10.119] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Nov 2000 21:59:00 -0000
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 21:58:58 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: Problematic entries in the lujvo list
Message-ID: <8vs132+kq3n@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <F259LCCtgx8VUkRacUt00004e00@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 781
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

--- In lojban@egroups.com, "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@h...> wrote:
> 
> la aulun cusku di'e
> 
> >x1 cu banli le ka jamna -> balkamjamna -> baljamna -> "grand in warring" 
> >("gloriously warring")
> 
> (At the risk of being chastised for invoking non-existing
> lujvo making rules...)
> 
> I just can't see {banli le ka jamna} giving {balkamjamna}.
> It has to be {kamjamba'i} or simply {jamba'i}.
> 
> That is not to say that {baljamna} is not a valid lujvo,
> but its expansion (to me) would be something like
> {banli je jamna}, not {banli le ka jamna}.

I can feel with you (and I also like your version better), but my point was that {baljamna} has to do with "to war", hence somewhat 
having the meaning of "grand in warring" rather than "great war". 

co'o mi'e .aulun.