From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Apr 16 17:13:55 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LubiN-0007kv-A3 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:13:55 -0700 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LubiK-0007km-Gd for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:13:55 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so384041and.1 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:13:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=50P3Wiw0fnUj9WQOWoFrIDSVv810z/hRehAofss4n/k=; b=Lx3/4tdjKkA5Y37Ta3bw1abDTCmKCL3Ev4x7twZMO2KTJz44tDG8R6IwcW8qT8L5ES jQDz+RCeC3W9Ln6yaDEjnH27UCcMFx02TMUEi/k+dHmEQ4zsQS6ozpXd9eG9vwFQULFt nuGUQfavn5U8zeVPvmNEWiIOiUPjew9XnH6kI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=VZovW85a7RwnMpL/xX5RZFVixcwVmOB4Y2f7ZVOSD+r0/pT7mCS0CpbIbOAqNI5E/L IaNoMJP59pfq9U2kmPAX4qV3buwwd2mHtOhxSaxJpLJocO0FoRIGNtDqFBLOlbkg8OEq pWD6PsxeUr5wf7NU55S9zqCkc2mUMwXNWj1KI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.33.15 with SMTP id g15mr2861086ang.48.1239927231175; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:13:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Robert Rhine Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:13:36 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: negative-opinion text To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e645b824295f890467b50e4b X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_score_int: -25 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: Hi, Here is a working link http://chaosnode.net/mar01/di010307.html Robbie (Any lojban spelling suggestions; reasons for the suggested spelling would be very appreciated) On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:17 PM, wrote: [...] Content analysis details: (-2.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-archive-position: 1535 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rrhine@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --0016e645b824295f890467b50e4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Here is a working link http://chaosnode.net/mar01/di010307.html Robbie (Any lojban spelling suggestions; reasons for the suggested spelling would be very appreciated) On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:17 PM, wrote: > 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 --0016e645b824295f890467b50e4b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

Here is a working link

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:17 PM, <MorphemeAd= dict@wmconnect.com> wrote:
In a mess= age 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. =A0"fet&q= uot; could be the femail "prefix" and "nak" the male &q= uot;prefix" when constructing lujvo. =A0Nothing from the lojban way of= doing things has to change and we have close to the diversity that this gu= y is talking about. =A0fetlan =3D ewe.


My concern was that he condemned the whole language based on one minor = trait. =A0He said nothing about how words *are* formed, about the syntax, o= r attitudinals, or optional kinds of words, or the predicate structures. = =A0

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 whi= ch include humans and artificial people).

stevo

--0016e645b824295f890467b50e4b--