From nobody@chain.digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 21 08:44:07 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list bpfk-announce); Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GxR1Z-00078Q-2O for bpfk-announce-real@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:44:05 -0800 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GxR1S-00078G-3R for bpfk-announce@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:44:04 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so2515278uge for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:43:56 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CK6HOTIU0rLpWxbLZvRm0Fqxgzw+bG5cTbiYdGHsfGjFnvJ1hMoZkVvgQvZ+ZbZUM7V0MCy6kUaxHd1wv9ZPJGpv3S1l9Rd5WJDuBamTUSws6kpqJyVcF4DQbq6WCtby9VZ12M7c2pLs29bDqQHgae9fy818iPvb6XQ85F29Ka4= Received: by 10.82.165.1 with SMTP id n1mr1949691bue.1166719436518; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:43:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.116.6 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:43:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560612210843r5ab7aa06x884e3c82a43fc6ae@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:43:56 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: bpfk-announce@lojban.org Subject: [bpfk-announce] Re: BPFK In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <458771EE.9020108@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 130 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: bpfk-announce@lojban.org X-list: bpfk-announce On 12/21/06, Matt Arnold wrote: > In an email today > Xorxes was very helpful when he said the possibly-controversial areas > would be "CAhA, TAhE, and perhaps something in FAhA and NU1. > Everything else (the great > majority) seems to require just grind work." I'm going to look up > those selma'o and find out what they are. Just to clarify: There I was talking only about the currently shepherdless sections (those marked in red). In the sections with shepherd but not yet checkpointed I expect there will be some other points for discussion. But still, the number of cmavo that might be controversial is very small compared to the uncontroversial ones. mu'o mi'e xorxes