From sentto-44114-18392-1043469294-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Jan 24 20:35:33 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from n11.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.66])
	by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18cI2Q-0008Ox-01
	for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:35:26 -0800
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-18392-1043469294-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.67.201] by n11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Jan 2003 04:34:55 -0000
X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 25 Jan 2003 04:34:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 88809 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2003 04:34:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Jan 2003 04:34:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO blackcat.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2003 04:34:54 -0000
Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 11FADA5AF; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 04:34:52 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: dis
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com (Lojban List)
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <200301250442.XAA26915@mail2.reutershealth.com>
In-Reply-To: <200301250442.XAA26915@mail2.reutershealth.com>
Message-Id: <200301242334.52786.phma@webjockey.net>
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:34:52 -0500
Subject: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-archive-position: 3905
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Friday 24 January 2003 23:29, John Cowan wrote:
> Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
> > (In addition "ala'um" is not an "option"; there should be no options in
> > an official algorithm.  It is either valid or invalid according to the
> > rules.)
>
> IIRC the validity of this word was discussed on jboske some time ago.

I'm not on jboske (maybe I should be, but when I looked at it I found the 
logician's jargon incomprehensible). Where is the discussion archived, and 
what was the conclusion?

phma

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/