Lojban In General

Posted by stevo on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 11:31 GMT posts: 381

In a message dated 9/19/2009 20:37:29 Eastern Daylight Time,
daniel@brockman.se writes:

> While {zo'e} is generic, it is not specific. In other words, {zo'e}
> is totally generic. It has the semantics of {lo}, rather than {le},
> if you will.
>
> I would like to have a {le ze'ei zo'e}.
>

I looked up "ze'ei" in my pdf dictionary of Lojban, and it's not there.
None of the experimental forms, save some rafsi, seem to be there. It would
be really nice to have all of Lojban included in the dictionary.

While looking through the experimental cmavo and gismu in jbovlaste, I
noticed that "ba'oi" has no selma'o listed with it. Does it belong to ROI, like
"mu'ei", which it is compared to?

Seven of the experimental cmavo are found in new selma'o: LEhAI (le'ai),
LOhAI (lo'ai), SAhAI (sa'ai), ZEhEI (ze'ei), and ZOhOI (la'oi, me'oi, zo'oi).
How do these new selma'o fit into the grammar?

I also noticed that the experimental gismu "nuzlo" doesn't have a gloss. I
suggest "New Zealand".

mu'o mie stevon