Return-path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_DKIM_INVALID,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on chain.digitalkingdom.org Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:27:53 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([192.168.123.127]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OxntW-0001RH-4o; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:27:26 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Oxnsw-0001PJ-TJ for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:26:51 -0700 Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.214.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Oxnsq-0001Jl-9U for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:26:50 -0700 Received: by bwz1 with SMTP id 1so8231181bwz.40 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:26:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=NYRNj+oEQekHL1ae7CRcFo2OVQSGMmgOx3s68ev8jpo=; b=CvxPuVyv3XisHvdK2Vzma1iwSqmeQPxWzrFVBTy2sXyUh1Kue10wo2sXbj26X0VU8R 7P7tpyJMzBonjiaRAqD8ulnf76eRkCn2dMfS/T8mbeejeMZnZmUIR8YBwvC7q3MoYGRi HInrxMMTnwwpC5Qm8xIpg5Vcu7qvJOxZGaMmU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=xjM26/qOPZpeUyn4Ld2Vjdpg5z8EreIqGPdWIlidcaR7IXhO/C9j640mZf/GVeWuwH /XcS9JgGlPNDoNOuqjiVPN+kp4kLjYFdrFsOd5mxmWk9QSumbZdytmN9kv/NUqno5RhG 9DULBIUe4vbL+I/0NoVvDcVQFm3kbOazPnBBk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.127.75 with SMTP id f11mr7177292bks.85.1285018002403; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.153.219 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.153.219 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:26:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <589275.89862.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <201009201112.09884.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201009201248.49687.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:26:41 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Alice in Wonderland 10 From: Luke Bergen To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d7ef8e9033d20490b791e8 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 3141 Lines: 86 --0016e6d7ef8e9033d20490b791e8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've often wondered about that for loCCan. Using a strategy of maximal difference and only secondly trying to use the common natlang words as a basis. It seems like having a languages words all be as distinct from each other as possible would be useful for making it maximally easy to pick out = a speach stream in a crowded party situation (because we know how frequently jbopre are in crowded parties talking lojban zo'o) I'll be honast (honest?), there are only a handful of gismu that I thought "oh yeah, that's kind of like X in my natlang". I really wonder if lojban chose the right strategy for gismu creation :( On Sep 20, 2010 2:18 PM, "John Cowan" wrote: > 2010/9/20 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > >> You missed the ratcu/ractu variety, so more than 20. > > Oops, yes. Typo in the regular expression. Add these 24 further pairs: > > bajra barja > balni banli > berti betri > canti catni > cedra cerda > danti datni > darsi dasri > festi fetsi > ganra garna > janta jatna > kabri karbi > kalri karli > kufra kurfa > nanvi navni > pulni punli > racli ralci > ractu ratcu > ranti ratni > rilti ritli > rinsa risna > sacki sakci > sodva sovda > tabno tanbo > tinsa tisna > > > --0016e6d7ef8e9033d20490b791e8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I've often wondered about that for loCCan.=A0 Using a strategy of ma= ximal difference and only secondly trying to use the common natlang words a= s a basis.=A0 It seems like having a languages words all be as distinct fro= m each other as possible would be useful for making it maximally easy to pi= ck out a speach stream in a crowded party situation (because we know how fr= equently jbopre are in crowded parties talking lojban zo'o)

I'll be honast (honest?), there are only a handful of gismu that I t= hought "oh yeah, that's kind of like X in my natlang".=A0 I r= eally wonder if lojban chose the right strategy for gismu creation :(

On Sep 20, 2010 2:18 PM, "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
> 20= 10/9/20 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllam= bias@gmail.com>:
>
>> You missed the ratcu/ractu variety, so more than 20.
&= gt;
> Oops, yes. Typo in the regular expression. Add these 24 furt= her pairs:
>
> bajra barja
> balni banli
> berti b= etri
> canti catni
> cedra cerda
> danti datni
> darsi dasr= i
> festi fetsi
> ganra garna
> janta jatna
> kabri= karbi
> kalri karli
> kufra kurfa
> nanvi navni
> = pulni punli
> racli ralci
> ractu ratcu
> ranti ratni
> rilti ritl= i
> rinsa risna
> sacki sakci
> sodva sovda
> tabno= tanbo
> tinsa tisna
>
>
>

--0016e6d7ef8e9033d20490b791e8--