Received: from mail-gh0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:34692)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNTPpI2KGxDUvMGBBRoEUokcHg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T2wFo-0006mC-To; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:32:50 -0700
Received: by ghbf16 with SMTP id f16sf5396662ghb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references
         :in-reply-to:mime-version:message-id: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:content-disposition;
        bh=S5yKfuc2KDm4RCsSi2RaQ8oRkyL3LGaTYntyCuog9GY=;
        b=sZsTQIWlUG9BsnVT7o7XQJbUrJ3e6RlzpN4ab5SpZkLV+j5Apvq0D7RefsJPD2Q+up
         Bw4MMVEV9STW7GoPOMojItW7tmb7F1wYx3cTJ+hASJoqSSM+8j4tT9M/dXxn6DPxSKS8
         Hk8GYSmHg+HnyH79/+oP/hQ5NZhtGM0Jeg/2s=
Received: by 10.236.180.41 with SMTP id i29mr2841940yhm.4.1345347156261;
        Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.236.113.178 with SMTP id a38ls12201101yhh.9.gmail; Sat, 18 Aug
 2012 20:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.115.226 with SMTP id e62mr6202640yhh.34.1345347155709;
        Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.115.226 with SMTP id e62mr6202639yhh.34.1345347155697;
        Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chausie ([2001:470:8:42:2c0:f0ff:fe3b:b5b5])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id i27si3318403yhe.4.2012.08.18.20.32.35;
        Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2001:470:8:42:2c0:f0ff:fe3b:b5b5 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) client-ip=2001:470:8:42:2c0:f0ff:fe3b:b5b5;
Received: from ip6-localhost (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BED921556
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:32:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Zombie
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:32:31 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
References: <CALm==BVL4ReGUDDfKkS8UCpSyQ2MM55JwBAs3Ae6LCp9FEFb_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAMKwHj332sXN+T6zx1tZi0VmpYxVpDGWEBnW2zthnrjTcEvWqg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOYwWb1zjBBCCf5KoN_RObFxVbtZEZa_c0UnV6trcGqRs4T0RQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOYwWb1zjBBCCf5KoN_RObFxVbtZEZa_c0UnV6trcGqRs4T0RQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <201208182332.33093.phma@phma.optus.nu>
X-Original-Sender: phma@phma.optus.nu
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 2001:470:8:42:2c0:f0ff:fe3b:b5b5 is neither permitted nor denied by best
 guess record for domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) smtp.mail=phma@phma.optus.nu
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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Saturday 18 August 2012 22:27:14 Mike S. wrote:
> But no one disputes those pronunciations.  What's being discussed is
> whether it is a *good idea* to use it in fu'ivla like suggested {dzombii}.
> It was already pointed out that {ii} is difficult for many globally.   In
> fact, {ii} is very marginal even in Lojban.  TTBOMK it was totally kept out
> of native vocabulary except for the interjection {.ii}, which I think was
> wise.  It'd probably be best to generally keep it and {uu} out of fu'ivla
> too.

I think that "ii" and "uu" in fu'ivla should be discouraged, but I wouldn't 
forbid them. If the ve fu'ivla contains "ii", I'd keep the "ii", 
e.g. "iinzila" (neck rings worn by Ndebele). For "zombie" I prefer "dzombie" 
to "dzombii".

Pierre

-- 
loi mintu se ckaji danlu cu jmaji

-- 
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.