Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:35527)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCK3S9MPqERDD7PX6BBoECSlw4g@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1S6wWt-0007eR-Oe; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:06:41 -0700
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11sf5088348vcb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=2BboQqWeqTn0ifE0fbgp2rRh0z4RA+qc1V6RA5fYGYw=;
        b=r8gbtVDpGVxjI/hnhhvR0yE54gNlkxJrH9f6wO2KBxQxwE5rPF+4SBv+kLdVcvpAi6
         8Hsu0B90A9tlFQP9y6YgaHnvmvttu3i/9HGj0Mq9J/BwEBwC3xebSvZcg0H9j7s/ZP+d
         /cvZx6flPsKfUowVDl4r3FeRzk5q16i0H6el8=
Received: by 10.68.225.41 with SMTP id rh9mr2314249pbc.14.1331525187473;
        Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.28.170 with SMTP id c10ls8068414pbh.3.gmail; Sun, 11 Mar
 2012 21:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.220.229 with SMTP id pz5mr9536800pbc.5.1331525186521;
        Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.220.229 with SMTP id pz5mr9536798pbc.5.1331525186507;
        Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f49.google.com (mail-pz0-f49.google.com [209.85.210.49])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p7si18083943pbq.0.2012.03.11.21.06.26
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of skaryzgik@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.49;
Received: by mail-pz0-f49.google.com with SMTP id p5so5046968dak.8
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.234.105 with SMTP id ud9mr7072618pbc.65.1331525186374; Sun,
 11 Mar 2012 21:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.231.72 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B112BE86-FEF0-4F68-AC2E-6CC212CB6F14@yahoo.com>
References: <CADV-Z3gnR6_PwemZZUCrycjU=YSjx4AKDuaiN5avyuaPBoFU5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMKwHj2kB+k5_qwbrHiz3v-wciAdhAcX-_0RxMkX0qYDxh-sQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOQ8VDWycNDfNdPvMKrnmKRgwmpqLHAxZiu1SzwcT=_zG8aGZw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALm==BXKE6TNSym81EPhEdT=DiRij+Yttpd-fX3wYbj_BOUwjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B112BE86-FEF0-4F68-AC2E-6CC212CB6F14@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:06:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CADV-Z3gHx7sGKv==irrMq+Ho1eAqYqA3dbeKjzNe3P+1znTrdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] footnotes, etc?
From: Marjorie Scherf <skaryzgik@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: skaryzgik@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of skaryzgik@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.49 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=skaryzgik@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d932be4afe04bb03ddf6
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--047d7b33d932be4afe04bb03ddf6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 21:35, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Point?  You don't use footnotes in spoken anything.  In written anything,
> you use the standard footnote conventions.  Loglan long ago (1960) had an
> array of typesetting cmavo which were soon discarded as totally
> irrelevant;why bring them back?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>

So if I'm understanding John correctly here, I can write a book in (or
translate a book into) lojban, use little asterisks or superscript numbers,
and have the matching ones at the bottom of the page, and it would still be
considered good, grammatical lojban?

At first this is surprising, but when I try to think up my objections, they
seem to come down to orthography rather than grammar. For example, an
orthography which didn't use "Arabic" numerals probably wouldn't use them
to mark footnotes, at least not in the ordered, numerical way they are
meant when they are used with the Roman letters typically used for English.
Though the same symbols may well be commandeered for use as random symbols
to be used like asterisks. Though I don't know any actual standard
conventions for such things in other than English, so I could be wrong even
about this. But my point with this hypothetical example is that typesetting
is much more closely linked to the orthography than the grammar. Supposing
I or someone else made a whole new orthography that worked entirely
differently than anything I've actually seen or heard of before, I'd have
the exact same typography questions to answer all over again anyway.

So I suppose the question becomes, then, would an orthography (including
such typesetting conventions) be considered "valid" according to the
various lojbanic principles? I remember one of the big deal ones being that
for a given speech stream, there is one spelling for it, and vice versa.
Though it has been a while since I read those things, and I might not be
remembering it or it's accepted interpretation correctly.

.imu'omi'e .skaryzgik.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


--047d7b33d932be4afe04bb03ddf6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 21:35, John E. Clifford <=
span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:kali9putra@yahoo.com">kali9putra@yah=
oo.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Point? =A0You don&#39;t use footnotes in spoken anything. =A0In written any=
thing, you use the standard footnote conventions. =A0Loglan long ago (1960)=
 had an array of typesetting cmavo which were soon discarded as totally irr=
elevant;why bring them back?<br>

<br>
Sent from my iPad<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><=
br>=A0</div></div>So if I&#39;m understanding John correctly here, I can wr=
ite a book in (or translate a book into) lojban, use little asterisks or su=
perscript numbers, and have the matching ones at the bottom of the page, an=
d it would still be considered good, grammatical lojban?<br>
<br>At first this is surprising, but when I try to think up my objections, =
they seem to come down to orthography rather than grammar. For example, an =
orthography which didn&#39;t use &quot;Arabic&quot; numerals probably would=
n&#39;t use them to mark footnotes, at least not in the ordered, numerical =
way they are meant when they are used with the Roman letters typically used=
 for English. Though the same symbols may well be commandeered for use as r=
andom symbols to be used like asterisks. Though I don&#39;t know any actual=
 standard conventions for such things in other than English, so I could be =
wrong even about this. But my point with this hypothetical example is that =
typesetting is much more closely linked to the orthography than the grammar=
. Supposing I or someone else made a whole new orthography that worked enti=
rely differently than anything I&#39;ve actually seen or heard of before, I=
&#39;d have the exact same typography questions to answer all over again an=
yway.<br>
<br>So I suppose the question becomes, then, would an orthography (includin=
g such typesetting conventions) be considered &quot;valid&quot; according t=
o the various lojbanic principles? I remember one of the big deal ones bein=
g that for a given speech stream, there is one spelling for it, and vice ve=
rsa. Though it has been a while since I read those things, and I might not =
be remembering it or it&#39;s accepted interpretation correctly.<br>
<br>.imu&#39;omi&#39;e .skaryzgik.<br>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



--047d7b33d932be4afe04bb03ddf6--