From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Apr 16 15:17:52 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LuZu4-0005qJ-Pw for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:17:52 -0700 Received: from imr-m06.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.200]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LuZu0-0005pF-Ql for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:17:52 -0700 Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199]) by imr-m06.mx.aol.com (v107.10) with ESMTP id RELAYIN2-349e7ae7a367; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:17:31 -0400 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-da01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v40_r1.5.) id d.c59.471a3e7e (42807) for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:17:27 -0400 (EDT) From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:17:27 EDT Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: negative-opinion text To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c59.471a3e7e.37190877_boundary" X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-IP: 205.188.169.199 X-Spam_score: -1.4 X-Spam_score_int: -13 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: In a message dated 4/16/2009 09:28:55 Eastern Daylight Time, lukeabergen@gmail.com writes: > Also, while lojban is supposed to be a logical language it is also > supposed to be a spoken language ninmu is a word that we use often, we could just > as easily say "fetre'a" (fetsi+remna) so in a way his point is moot > actually. "fet" could be the femail "prefix" and "nak" the male "prefix" when > constructing lujvo. Nothing from the lojban way of doing things has to > change and we have close to the diversity that this guy is talking about. > fetlan = ewe. > [...] Content analysis details: (-1.4 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ----X-archive-position: 1534 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --part1_c59.471a3e7e.37190877_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/16/2009 09:28:55 Eastern Daylight Time, lukeabergen@gmail.com writes: > Also, while lojban is supposed to be a logical language it is also > supposed to be a spoken language ninmu is a word that we use often, we could just > as easily say "fetre'a" (fetsi+remna) so in a way his point is moot > actually. "fet" could be the femail "prefix" and "nak" the male "prefix" when > constructing lujvo. Nothing from the lojban way of doing things has to > change and we have close to the diversity that this guy is talking about. > fetlan = ewe. > My concern was that he condemned the whole language based on one minor trait. He said nothing about how words *are* formed, about the syntax, or attitudinals, or optional kinds of words, or the predicate structures. And "fetlan" is a cmevla; I might use "fetlanme". "fetre'a" for 'woman' and "nakre'a" for 'man' are both legitimate words, as are "fetpre" and "nakpre", which I would use for Klingons, for instance, (and which include humans and artificial people). stevo --part1_c59.471a3e7e.37190877_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a messag= e dated 4/16/2009 09:28:55 Eastern Daylight Time, lukeabergen@gmail.com wr= ites:


Also, while lojban is= supposed to be a logical language it is also supposed to be a spoken lang= uage ninmu is a word that we use often, we could just as easily say "fetre= 'a" (fetsi+remna) so in a way his point is moot actually.  "fet" coul= d be the femail "prefix" and "nak" the male "prefix" when constructing luj= vo.  Nothing from the lojban way of doing things has to change and we= have close to the diversity that this guy is talking about.  fetlan= =3D ewe.


My concern was that he condemned the whole language based on one minor= trait.  He said nothing about how words *are* formed, about the synt= ax, or attitudinals, or optional kinds of words, or the predicate structur= es.  

And "fetlan" is a cmevla; I might use "fetlanme".
"fetre'a" for 'woman' and "nakre'a" for 'man' are both legitimate word= s, as are "fetpre" and "nakpre", which I would use for Klingons, for insta= nce, (and which include humans and artificial people).

stevo --part1_c59.471a3e7e.37190877_boundary--