Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:22:30 -0700
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;  s=s1024; d=rogers.com;  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;  b=UKIfrBZy/JGwPYE9o1cLaDbrTwBBIS7oSomvDDJlZ5zaIn/WvY7nSFw2elp/5Sgiu6/wKDg3ytku+uVW0u1KYDYpombZ6MBSpieFh7chs3T2jqz7X5F0+zRbgg6xuEc794JFffWbO4L6oZncOstgsc/OXhTpXV6bIc2gGuoksus=;
Message-ID: <502866.25584.qm@web88006.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: "A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Two awkward lujvo
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam_score: 0.7
X-Spam_score_int: 7
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  coi ro do Here is a proposal for lujvo that are alternatives
    to 'awkward' lujvo currently in jbovlaste. 1) jdikyplini (dwarf planet).
   [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.7 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
                             trust
                             [68.142.237.92 listed in list.dnswl.org]
  0.8 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
                             [score: 0.5000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
                             domain
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: totus@rogers.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
X-list: jbovlaste
Content-Length: 2061
Lines: 55

coi ro do

Here is a proposal for lujvo that are alternatives to 'awkward' 
lujvo currently in jbovlaste.

1) jdikyplini (dwarf planet).

Until recently, planets beyond Neptune (i.e. Pluto and Eris) were 
{plini} like all the others, and asteroids were {cmaplini} or 
{plinycma}.  Since Pluto and Eris have been downgraded 
by the International Astronomical Union to a new non-planet category:
'dwarf planets', a new lujvo would be useful.  {cmaplini/plinycma} 
would be the obvious name - if it were not already used for 'asteroid'.

I see two options: either redefine {cmaplini/plinycma} to mean 'dwarf 
planet or create a new lujvo.  I'm reluctant to suggest the redefinition 
of {cmaplini/plinycma } - the old one has been in use for some time, 
so I propose {jdikyplini} for 'dwarf planet'.  The implied reduction refers 
is a reduction to their importance.

  
jdikyplini: j1is a dwarf planet revolving around j2with characteristics j3, orbital parameters j4.
 
2)snukarni ([shared journal]/blog)
 
Yes, there is a lujvo {kibykarni} already in jbovlaste 
that means 'blog'.  However, it's based on an experimental 
gismu.  There are two problems with that;
- Experimental gismu should be 'tested in the marketplace' 
for acceptability etc before becoming official. If the 
experimenatal gismu fails, so will the derived chain of lujvo 
that are based on it.  Clearly, lujvo based on experimental 
lujvo should be avoided if there is reasonable alternative based 
on baselined gismu.
- Testing of lujvo based on experimental gismu only makes sense if 
it is involves a comparison with an alternative lujvo based on 
baselined gismu.  Which is better? So there has to be an 
alternative and, right now, there isn't one.
 
So I propose:
 
snukarni: k1 is a [shared journal]/blog about topic/subject k2=c2 
published/administered by k3 for participants/audience k4=c1
 
I would think there is generally no need to specify that the blog 
is internet-based, but if there is, you can always use 
{snukarni tecu'u lo mujyseltcana}.
 
Comments please.
 
totus