From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Aug 21 10:37:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 21 Aug 2001 17:37:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 76633 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2001 17:33:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2001 17:33:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Aug 2001 17:33:25 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:11:53 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:38:40 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:38:21 +0100 To: phma , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Retraction, Part 1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta Pierre: #> Anyway, as for the original jipci question, {le jipci} would be an #> appalling rendition. {lo jipci} is okay, though definitely a case of loo= se #> use -- "Something is such that it is a chicken and it is made of pretzel= s" #> only loosely approximates to the chickenmaking situation being #> described. # #lo jipci that is made of pretzels is a chicken that grew up eating pretzel= s.=20 #jipci tarmi isn't right either; it's the shape of a chicken, not something= =20 #shaped like a chicken, which is jipci seltai or jipci tamsmi. True enough, in truth conditional terms. What I meant is that it should be possible to say "lo jipci" and be understood to be speaking loosely but not erroneously. This could be clarified by adding the UI for figurative usage before "jipci". However, I myself do prefer your renditions, or something like {lo marji be lo'e pretzel be lo'e jipci}=20 or more pedantically {da poi te se marji ge ke'a lo'e pretzel gi lo'e jipci} (Suggestions of simpler but not vaguer ways of saying the same thing are welcome.) --And.