Received: from mail-ob0-f184.google.com ([209.85.214.184]:50501)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDBPJRUZSQARBUUB2ODQKGQEAXB2YUI@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1TuwOn-0004Vh-Vo; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:37:18 -0800
Received: by mail-ob0-f184.google.com with SMTP id 16sf3032700obc.21
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:37:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received: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=m2P0BEFp5+Wu3fWs4HLYUuRRSQTpXHAT4SxQkiHBsFE=;
        b=y5kE8FbpsodzkpHg+KttFdjK2HInGrcXga42GfcfNI4yQP6KrTGQZQ4HtF/19/MgDs
         kAiZiddTIUM/VqHtAiOa+f+nyheczAd8CdHmxkuOPl6dS+4PpkcbuA2vgq72AGkaqtQE
         SDnso6rh8RTAt5ZrxQAUg2NK187lcjPgCLLeLv6zzrsJfawKADFsPBELjNkJvUGxEaIo
         fyTalfTBP1Aalb0DXcak9KybmsdpDZvM8qIOKdn7n2k8Y3ZdSW3Wlggz5KbnLONK+Ujq
         r3C4oQDMlKkL1piCic5AadUCMLH6FT5RPTGvpO8xQTzu+l45zcvKX9X4pxwOpopC8MN2
         ySDQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received: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=m2P0BEFp5+Wu3fWs4HLYUuRRSQTpXHAT4SxQkiHBsFE=;
        b=ao64PdVOmHR+kuBsn6gRZkS7lUaDeqFgNefuWAGILdnqVL3VIoWJrOJhWuk0GMBdqw
         Z+FJX1w6Kxt0lDU4SCvzi6cIBrMtvB+gUjt+Zxhjxhp4DE4NURkeDdBfXPQz9FFT7AIX
         AQ6tZB6dZSVF97qq877Gdo38WKXL4Mt1rEijgSffN91P+E/8VoagcETNS8smMVgBGTF3
         fQHFLMAh1uutl0KDQWmZ7KnUO2a9tILb8qClqpbGEUHMB7yRLeh3voyoQM04HSfYYQAk
         hcCOYff8IOK/5oGBVjUE+xBzRo/JaDymFaNyUv3yT/SzrgqSBpHGq6v0RfEyaszefNYD
         T7/A==
X-Received: by 10.49.128.166 with SMTP id np6mr16046663qeb.31.1358217427270;
        Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:37:07 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.49.96.68 with SMTP id dq4ls3915559qeb.16.gmail; Mon, 14 Jan
 2013 18:37:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.52.96.202 with SMTP id du10mr33098722vdb.1.1358217426549;
        Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:37:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.52.96.202 with SMTP id du10mr33098721vdb.1.1358217426535;
        Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (mail-vc0-f173.google.com [209.85.220.173])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h20si2625311vdg.3.2013.01.14.18.37.06
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.173;
Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id fl15so114323vcb.4
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:37:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.27.174 with SMTP id u14mr24223957vdg.107.1358217426421;
 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.13.197 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:37:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv2tT5H=JdpnBjS5SnVsA__nf5Gfhkx1Yx_8p8JM=_sY7VVDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <88bd2464-6efd-4252-9ff6-7c4f68f79e89@googlegroups.com>
	<2881164.qORC9BWpb7@caracal>
	<CAKv2tT5H=JdpnBjS5SnVsA__nf5Gfhkx1Yx_8p8JM=_sY7VVDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 21:37:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+gZtgJNUMNn09sW=YVPL9YWat=oHCurZwFAnUyn_VMRmpnM9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] criteria for the dictionary
From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.173 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@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=20cf307cfd4c3ac76e04d34aa3ac
X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+)
X-Spam_score: 1.4
X-Spam_score_int: 14
X-Spam_bar: +
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  > > I've been wondering about IUPAC-terminology and lojban.
    Wouldn't it be > possible to use lojban features as {joi}, {ke}, {xi}, {mei}
    within the > rules of the IUPAC system somehow to have lujvos like > 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-di(4-chlorophenyl)ethane
    ? > Only with extreme pain, and a tremendous lack of extensibility (i.e.
   you get no simple way to say that a SN2 reaction occurs at one of the above
    1-chloro positions). I highly, highly discourage this idea. Use {zoi} if
   need be when things are extremely jargon-dense. I admit that this stance is
    unsatisfying, but to be blunt IUPAC nomenclature is already unsatisfying
   (note the proliferation of common names despite it, even among chemists),
   and it's a domain-specific conlang. Expecting a general purpose conlang to
    do the job better and in full generality is a recipe for failure. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.4 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  1.5 RCVD_IN_NJABL_SPAM     RBL: NJABL: sender is confirmed spam source
                             [209.85.214.184 listed in combined.njabl.org]
  0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED  RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to DNSWL
                             was blocked.  See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [209.85.214.184 listed in list.dnswl.org]
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (blindbravado[at]gmail.com)
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
                             domain
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature

--20cf307cfd4c3ac76e04d34aa3ac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>
> I've been wondering about IUPAC-terminology and lojban. Wouldn't it be
> possible to use lojban features as {joi}, {ke}, {xi}, {mei} within the
> rules of the IUPAC system somehow to have lujvos like
> 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-di(4-chlorophenyl)ethane ?
>
Only with extreme pain, and a tremendous lack of extensibility (i.e. you
get no simple way to say that a SN2 reaction occurs at one of the above
1-chloro positions). I highly, highly discourage this idea. Use {zoi} if
need be when things are extremely jargon-dense. I admit that this stance is
unsatisfying, but to be blunt IUPAC nomenclature is already unsatisfying
(note the proliferation of common names despite it, even among chemists),
and it's a domain-specific conlang. Expecting a general purpose conlang to
do the job better and in full generality is a recipe for failure.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

-- 
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.


--20cf307cfd4c3ac76e04d34aa3ac
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote"><div>I&#39;ve been wondering about IUPAC-terminology and lojban. =
Wouldn&#39;t it be possible to use lojban features as {joi}, {ke}, {xi}, {m=
ei} within the rules of the IUPAC system somehow to have lujvos like =A0 1,=
1,1-trichloro-2,2-di(4-chlorophenyl)ethane ?</div>
</div></blockquote><div>Only with extreme pain, and a tremendous lack of ex=
tensibility (i.e. you get no simple way to say that a SN2 reaction occurs a=
t one of the above 1-chloro positions). I highly, highly discourage this id=
ea. Use {zoi} if need be when things are extremely jargon-dense. I admit th=
at this stance is unsatisfying, but to be blunt IUPAC nomenclature is alrea=
dy unsatisfying (note the proliferation of common names despite it, even am=
ong chemists), and it&#39;s a domain-specific conlang. Expecting a general =
purpose conlang to do the job better and in full generality is a recipe for=
 failure.<br>
</div><br>mi&#39;e la latro&#39;a mu&#39;o<br></div>

<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 />



--20cf307cfd4c3ac76e04d34aa3ac--