Received: from mail-lb0-f189.google.com ([209.85.217.189]:55028) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SgIXs-0003pF-LI; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:41:50 -0700 Received: by lbol5 with SMTP id l5sf3416366lbo.16 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:41:41 -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=KNDCUb0+yMSRnrVZosHQOV4nyzH7VreJcCxZ0hyAFbY=; b=BUC7w9rGHcdxKq6reurlfzV+kZW/qQQ/6C6gxyNMrCInrLZair/8wtzdRnHPUyQ0tR Oq0Iku+Jmouv+cWLYXrHsVdfn27JVlCY1ralU3hEe9Tk9Qespg39du96ODkibDSGBDLi xTV253g5ZQ+IMj7FE0R5baXabZiTivKNW/Wso= Received: by 10.204.155.155 with SMTP id s27mr662899bkw.20.1339951300633; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:41:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.205.129.148 with SMTP id hi20ls2834819bkc.0.gmail; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.134.138 with SMTP id ic10mr1494524bkc.8.1339951299885; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.134.138 with SMTP id ic10mr1494523bkc.8.1339951299866; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com (mail-lb0-f180.google.com [209.85.217.180]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p5si12359007bks.1.2012.06.17.09.41.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.180; Received: by lbbgh12 with SMTP id gh12so3245242lbb.25 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.108.178 with SMTP id hl18mr11716538lab.11.1339951299476; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.46.36 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:41:39 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lojban Wiktionary closure proposal. From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.180 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54c513a38bbb404c2adb944 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --bcaec54c513a38bbb404c2adb944 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > ...jvajvo is a lujvo meaning {javni lo lujvo}. lujvo can not be se javni. > I must correct myself. The definition I gave is for jvojva. I'll try again. Lujvo can be defined however we like, and are not required to precisely mimic the bridi they represent. Also, as far as I am aware, it is not possible for a lujvo (, or any other kind of word, for that matter, ) to be a rule. As such, there is no problem with defining lo jvajvo cu lujvo fi'o se javni -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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. --bcaec54c513a38bbb404c2adb944 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Jones= <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

I must correct myself. The definitio= n I gave is for jvojva.

I'll try again.

Lujvo can be defi= ned however we like, and are not required to precisely mimic the bridi they= represent. Also, as far as I am aware, it is not possible for a lujvo (, o= r any other kind of word, for that matter, ) to be a rule. As such, there i= s no problem with defining lo jvajvo cu lujvo fi'o se javni

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo piln= o be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Lu= ke, I am your father. :D )

--
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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--bcaec54c513a38bbb404c2adb944--