From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 31 10:28:45 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 31 May 2008 10:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K2Usn-000574-1h for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 10:28:45 -0700 Received: from web56409.mail.re3.yahoo.com ([216.252.111.88]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K2Ush-00056Z-2N for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 10:28:44 -0700 Received: (qmail 8459 invoked by uid 60001); 31 May 2008 17:28:32 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=bDE6B7lJ1VrAiDRS1VDbCUrYBhDdUUFyzGU7XVRtSVQ5Ai0BQ9wydKzEXBb4NWWX/HfRutS+FdaIlIJPTjUW/WnSHmIIMuNI4qFeE6E041YGb/kCw/sPNG11BrQ2S1619I10uHQluJxffbiV1kdulK/9KwRJqGy3UAZk/EFeeuk=; Received: from [71.239.173.94] by web56409.mail.re3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 31 May 2008 10:28:32 PDT Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 10:28:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Nathaniel Krause Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Fwd: the gismu typos To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0805310930i6bc3744axf656ccc3a599214a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1791736072-1212254912=:8374" Message-ID: <510762.8374.qm@web56409.mail.re3.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 625 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nathanielkrause@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --0-1791736072-1212254912=:8374 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --- On Sun, 6/1/08, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote: From: Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Fwd: the gismu typos To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Date: Sunday, June 1, 2008, 12:30 AM > Also, it would wreak havoc with > the rafsi (sku and dzu at least would have to go). Yes, some would. That would be particularly, confusing, then. > But really {spotu} is not a better word than {spofu} -- it's not "jbomau", it's not easier to > learn, it doesn't sound better. What do you mean by "jbomau"? Why should {spofu} be *more Lojbanic* than {spotu}? Is "color" more English than "colour"? The etymology says it has two source words with "t" (tut & rot), and none with "f". So, how is {spofu} easier to learn than {spotu} from the perspective of the source languages' speakers? And why should the former even sound better? The question is not whether "spofu" sounds better or is more Lojbanic than "spotu" is. "Spofu" is what the word is now. There's no reason to change it unless there is some kind of reason to change it. So, the question is whether "spotu" is somehow better than "spofu", and whether that improvement is sufficient to justify tinkering with the language. "Spofu" is not easier to learn than "spotu" in principle, but it certainly is easier to learn in principle, since the learner would always be getting confused by old texts which use "spofu", or by speakers who learnt "spofu" previously and have forgotten to switch to the new version. mu'o mi'e sen --0-1791736072-1212254912=:8374 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii


--- On Sun, 6/1/08, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Fwd: the gismu typos
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Date: Sunday, June 1, 2008, 12:30 AM

> Also, it would wreak havoc with
> the rafsi (sku and dzu at least would have to go).

Yes, some would.

That would be particularly, confusing, then.


> But really {spotu} is not a better word than {spofu}
 -- it's not
"jbomau", it's not easier to
> learn, it doesn't sound better.

What do you mean by "jbomau"? Why should {spofu} be *more Lojbanic*
than {spotu}? Is "color" more English than "colour"?

The etymology says it has two source words with "t" (tut & rot),
and
none with "f". So, how is {spofu} easier to learn than {spotu} from
the perspective of the source languages' speakers? And why should the
former even sound better?

The question is not whether "spofu" sounds better or is more Lojbanic than "spotu" is. "Spofu" is what the word is now. There's no reason to change it unless there is some kind of reason to change it. So, the question is whether "spotu" is somehow better than "spofu", and whether that improvement is sufficient to justify tinkering with the language.

"Spofu" is not easier to learn than "spotu" in principle, but it certainly is easier to learn in principle, since the learner would always be getting confused by old texts which use "spofu", or by speakers who learnt "spofu" previously and have forgotten to switch to the new version.

mu'o mi'e sen

--0-1791736072-1212254912=:8374--