From raganok@intrex.net Tue Dec 10 18:53:49 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:53:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18Lwzp-0002Ey-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:53:13 -0800
Received: from Craig [209.42.200.38] by smtp.intrex.net
  (SMTPD32-5.05) id A89639E4005E; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:53:10 -0500
From: "Craig" <raganok@intrex.net>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: tags
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:53:11 -0500
Message-ID: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFMEIDCNAA.raganok@intrex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <20021211004659.GA49678@allusion.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.38]
X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted
X-archive-position: 3433
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: raganok@intrex.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

>> Is it just me or does "lojban lo lojbo bangu" strike anyone else as
>> unlojbanic? It seems like it is a horrible malglico translation. Why not
>> "la lojban no'u le logji bangu"? (Note that I use logji, not lojbo. )

>Yup.  And the "le" instead of "lo".

"no'u le" should probably become "noi" - "la lojban noi logji bangu" - since
the le essentially undoes the demi-du of the no'u. This is part of why I
feel most po'u constructions are to'e lobykai, but I don't feel like getting
into that flamewar again.