Received: from mail-da0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:43120) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TM1Q0-0003wN-3L; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:22 -0700 Received: by mail-da0-f61.google.com with SMTP id k18sf649901dae.16 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; 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=0PylzyzjreD1tegHbJcp35CZEZ93mvDzI4eNL1vGgo0=; b=nvqRfE07mclG3zD7K1TB3t3JaobzreBjEpIPu1EaG2Jm3vc+t7v5D6WGUkBnUb9a+S 3rkTO4r3Chg4NyC1M2FlFZtOlXHhTjXksXruAjphuSfJAqVfyZxVlQAdZ15N5AAU27kt UfjeOWcJlliL4UwzLtLou4KsYlPL4KTLJdQZDACsPnoQZc0EzIBFPaFdoRyjT6X3Uxge 6qWs4iesrUGw5MImR9sPoZF/1BK4oKBJJLwoe04/rniq9LwYU+oti8wWMb3FkK4UPfqQ 5E499Hm/+eLwrgmohkGOjOW822EVmynmxWEM0DMzOGatLG564gXKddo+3/QMGHYVWfKH +ptw== Received: by 10.52.72.197 with SMTP id f5mr3894195vdv.17.1349895241404; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.16.79 with SMTP id e15ls701847vdd.6.gmail; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.200.167 with SMTP id jt7mr5103520vec.16.1349895240801; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.200.167 with SMTP id jt7mr5103519vec.16.1349895240782; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (mail-vc0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bn19si154169vdb.0.2012.10.10.11.54.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.181; Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id n11so1330103vch.12 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.220.7 with SMTP id hw7mr14299971vcb.17.1349895240672; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.253.129 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:54:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5055F005.3050304@gmx.de> References: <20120814151252.GU27726@samsa> <421689dc-2c42-42f1-9cca-0d2ac1a04677@googlegroups.com> <20120816115739.GA29668@samsa> <50538A6F.2020404@gmx.de> <50539D97.4020205@gmx.de> <5055C6FB.3070802@gmx.de> <5055F005.3050304@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:54:00 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lo selsanga pe la'o dy. Bodo Wartke .dy zi'e po'u la'o dy. Liebeslied .dy From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@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=14dae9d24d544de72c04cbb8fa18 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --14dae9d24d544de72c04cbb8fa18 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM, selpa'i wrote: > Am 16.09.2012 17:08, schrieb Michael Turniansky: > > Ah, so NOW I see where you are coming from. You believe that, contrary >> to the CLL, "a word must never begin with a vowel", and that the denpa bu >> must always be a glottal stop, not just a pause. Both are contradicted by >> Chapter 3 of the CLL, >> > > The CLL's view on this topic is not very coherent. The CLL simply > overlooks a lot of this and is therefore outdated. I find no incoherence on the topic nor outdatedness. YMMV > > > and lojban as it is actually used. >> > > As it is used by some. Those that understand the things I'm trying to > explain here (and agree with it) have already changed their way of using > Lojban to make it make more sense. You are not aware of all Lojban usage > out there, so this is an argument out of ignorance. No, but I have heard a lot of lojban over the past 8 years. And with the exception of one person (and I guess, you), I haven't heard anyone treat them as glottal stops. > > Since are talking about some theoretical language that you use, and not >> lojban, there is no point in continuing this discussion, as we are talking >> about two different languages. >> > > If by Lojban you mean what the CLL describes, then yes, that is not a > language I'm speaking and nor is anybody else I consider a good speaker of > Lojban. There is no point in bringing up the CLL in matters that it clearly > is either inconsistent about or that it adresses poorly. I'm sure you are > aware of at least some changes that have been made to the original Language > described in the CLL. Do you object to all of them because the CLL > contradicts them, or do you agree with them because they actually make a > lot of sense? Well, then, I guess you don't consider me a good speaker of lojban, since I follow the CLL, except perhaps in the one or two areas over the past decades where the BPFK has actually made a decision contrary to it (but AFAIK nothing has been finalized by them in many many years). But I don't see that in THIS matter I don't see any contradictory ruling by "the powers that be" And while CLL may or may not be the ultimate authority on "lojban as she is spoke", it's the best and most complete one out there to date. Feel free to write another if you feel it's inadequate. But I like to have my bible. --gejyspa -- 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. --14dae9d24d544de72c04cbb8fa18 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at= 11:28 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 16.09.2012 17:08, schrieb Michael Turniansky:

=A0 Ah, so NOW I see where you are coming from. =A0You believe that, contra= ry to the CLL, "a word must never begin with a vowel", and that t= he denpa bu must always be a glottal stop, not just a pause. =A0Both are co= ntradicted by Chapter 3 of the CLL,

The CLL's view on this topic is not very coherent. The CLL simply overl= ooks a lot of this and is therefore outdated.

=A0 I find no incoherence on the topic nor outdatedness. =A0YMMV=A0


and lojban as it is actually used.

As it is used by some. Those that understand the things I'm trying to e= xplain here (and agree with it) have already changed their way of using Loj= ban to make it make more sense. You are not aware of all Lojban usage out t= here, so this is an argument out of ignorance.

=A0 =A0No, but I have heard a lot of lojban over the pa= st 8 years. =A0And with the exception of one person (and I guess, you), I h= aven't heard anyone treat them as glottal stops.
=A0

Since are talking about some theoretical language that you use, and not loj= ban, there is no point in continuing this discussion, as we are talking abo= ut two different languages.

If by Lojban you mean what the CLL describes, then yes, that is not a langu= age I'm speaking and nor is anybody else I consider a good speaker of L= ojban. There is no point in bringing up the CLL in matters that it clearly = is either inconsistent about or that it adresses poorly. I'm sure you a= re aware of at least some changes that have been made to the original Langu= age described in the CLL. Do you object to all of them because the CLL cont= radicts them, or do you agree with them because they actually make a lot of= sense?

=A0 Well, then, I guess you don't consider me a goo= d speaker of lojban, since I follow the CLL, except perhaps in the one or t= wo areas over the past decades where the BPFK has actually made a decision = contrary to it (but =A0AFAIK nothing has been finalized by them in many man= y years). =A0 But I don't see that in THIS matter I don't see any c= ontradictory ruling by "the powers that be" And while CLL may or = may not be the ultimate authority on "lojban as she is spoke", it= 's the best and most complete one out there to date. =A0Feel free to wr= ite another if you feel it's inadequate. =A0But I like to have my bible= .
=A0 =A0 =A0 --gejyspa

--
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.
--14dae9d24d544de72c04cbb8fa18--