Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:52:25 -0700
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;  s=s1024; d=rogers.com;  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;  b=Z6ep34jW7ZfEl8F0SCkLmVKUxTznGWn79uPT3uJO9747jy1IZt7n3WQyrDiCHjVYtIY5r3nuZKpM78oVveBcGfwpMxLtBw6SA1o8GilBI2BuggApk1ulzKlHg7qI/Bz+o+vl4HN5bLcsEnrdOHP9QzD+Tb9ccbXtSGdE4cRQKuA=;
Message-ID: <275516.32694.qm@web88008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <201009161103.17292.phma@phma.optus.nu> <AANLkTinrq1GrYh5PYOgwSbHLUw5n+KGD=gx7WeQ2=393@mail.gmail.com> <862920.35413.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <AANLkTikYwAgC4gNvsQa3YATH0kLubZ621eA5-rh2khE4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: crab
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikYwAgC4gNvsQa3YATH0kLubZ621eA5-rh2khE4@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1899770623-1284738669=:32694"
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 2654
Lines: 45

--0-1899770623-1284738669=:32694
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, what I get out of this significant exchange of =0Aopinions is that:=
=0A=0A(1)=A0A lujvo is impracticle.=A0 While one based on {xamsi jukni} =0A=
is tempting, not all crabs inhabit the sea.=A0 A lujvo of sufficient =0Apre=
cision would be just too long.=0A=0A(2) A type III fu'ivla like {juknrbraxi=
ura} is problematical given =0Athe dispute as to whether a crab is really a=
 {jukni}.=0A=0A(3) That leaves a type IV fui'vla.=A0 Choosing one based on =
=0Aa word that is recognizable in only one 'minor' or a few =0A'minor' lang=
uages just doesn't make sense to me.=A0=A0 =0AIt should come from either En=
glish or Chinese=A0and =0Abe vaguely recognizable in=A0at least several oth=
er major =0Alanguages.=A0 Failing that, Linnaean is the way to go. The =0Af=
act that it is based on Latin is incidental.=A0 If it was based =0Aon Pidge=
on English, it would still be OK.=0A=0A=0ASo for me 'crab' is {braxiura}.=
=0A=0Atotus
--0-1899770623-1284738669=:32694
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></he=
ad><body><div style=3D"font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:1=
2pt"><DIV>Well, what I get out of this significant exchange of </DIV>=0A<DI=
V>opinions is that:</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>(1)&nbsp;A lujvo is im=
practicle.&nbsp; While one based on {xamsi jukni} </DIV>=0A<DIV>is tempting=
, not all crabs inhabit the sea.&nbsp; A lujvo of sufficient </DIV>=0A<DIV>=
precision would be just too long.</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>(2) A ty=
pe III fu'ivla like {juknrbraxiura} is problematical given </DIV>=0A<DIV>th=
e dispute as to whether a crab is really a {jukni}.</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DI=
V>=0A<DIV>(3) That leaves a type IV fui'vla.&nbsp; Choosing one based on </=
DIV>=0A<DIV>a word that is recognizable in only one 'minor' or a few </DIV>=
=0A<DIV>'minor' languages just doesn't make sense to me.&nbsp;&nbsp; </DIV>=
=0A<DIV>It should come from either English or Chinese&nbsp;and </DIV>=0A<DI=
V>be vaguely recognizable in&nbsp;at least several other major </DIV>=0A<DI=
V>languages.&nbsp; Failing that, Linnaean is the way to go. The </DIV>=0A<D=
IV>fact that it is based on Latin is incidental.&nbsp; If it was based </DI=
V>=0A<DIV>on Pidgeon English, it would still be OK.</DIV>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DI=
V>=0A<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>So for me 'crab' is {braxiura}.</DIV>=0A<DIV>=
&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>totus</DIV></div></body></html>
--0-1899770623-1284738669=:32694--