Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: la arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <6a0464a5-b51a-4491-b244-f97de9302d22@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: cmevla as a class of brivla
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_446_9762752.1369669212178"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_446_9762752.1369669212178
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


On Monday, May 27, 2013 7:05:16 PM UTC+4, Betsemes wrote:
>
> coi rodo 
> While reading the other thread on commands, I noticed this sentence by la 
> gleki: 
>
> "e'i si ei si xoi si sei bilga mi bazu troci lo ka stika lo tatoebas 
> jufra" 
>
> "lo tatoebas jufra" is ungrammatical according to standard lojban, but 
> I have been seeing around that de facto may be different from the 
> standard. I now think that standard lojban naming rules are broken, 
> and using cmevla as brivla is the way to go, at least on the field of 
> naming. I found this old conversation: 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/lojban/rSXFTFeMA_o 
> in which Robin said the rules weren't broken. I now strongly disagree. 
>
> So my question is what's de facto on this subject? 
>

Side notes. This is an example of good ideas being favored by no one.
It's been 22 years (yes, you are not mistaken) since this was proposed.
At that time it was Loglan.
http://www.loglan.org/Articles2/mixed-names-problem.html

However, I'm not sure what {lo .paris.} would mean under this proposal.

If cmevla as brivla are considered as names then lo .paris. = la .paris.

If cmevla is a new class of verbs/content words/predicates (whatever you 
call it) that's another story.


> mu'o mi'e betsemes 
>

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


------=_Part_446_9762752.1369669212178
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Monday, May 27, 2013 7:05:16 PM UTC+4, Betsemes wrote:<blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: =
1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">coi rodo
<br>While reading the other thread on commands, I noticed this sentence by =
la gleki:
<br>
<br>"e'i si ei si xoi si sei bilga mi bazu troci lo ka stika lo tatoebas ju=
fra"
<br>
<br>"lo tatoebas jufra" is ungrammatical according to standard lojban, but
<br>I have been seeing around that de facto may be different from the
<br>standard. I now think that standard lojban naming rules are broken,
<br>and using cmevla as brivla is the way to go, at least on the field of
<br>naming. I found this old conversation:
<br><a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/lojban/rS=
XFTFeMA_o" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/<wbr>forum/?fromgrou=
ps#!topic/<wbr>lojban/rSXFTFeMA_o</a>
<br>in which Robin said the rules weren't broken. I now strongly disagree.
<br>
<br>So my question is what's de facto on this subject?
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Side notes. This is an example of good=
 ideas being favored by no one.</div><div>It's been 22 years (yes, you are =
not mistaken) since this was proposed.</div><div>At that time it was Loglan=
.</div><div><a href=3D"http://www.loglan.org/Articles2/mixed-names-problem.=
html">http://www.loglan.org/Articles2/mixed-names-problem.html</a><br></div=
><div><br></div><div>However, I'm not sure what {lo .paris.} would mean und=
er this proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>If cmevla as brivla are consider=
ed as names then lo .paris. =3D la .paris.</div><div><br></div><div>If cmev=
la is a new class of verbs/content words/predicates (whatever you call it) =
that's another story.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>mu'o mi'e betsemes
<br></blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3De=
n">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

------=_Part_446_9762752.1369669212178--