From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon May 26 04:49:30 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 26 May 2003 04:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.114]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KGTk-0000F5-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 04:49:24 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-66-67.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.66.67]) by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403BB47EA3 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:48:52 +0200 (MEST) From: "And Rosta" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:48:50 +0100 Message-ID: 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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030525081407.03168210@pop.east.cox.net> X-archive-position: 5401 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Lojbab: > At 03:32 AM 5/25/03 -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > >On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 01:16:29PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > > Why is it important that infrequently used jargon words have very short > > > forms? > > > >(glances at lau, tei, and foi) > > Content words. Obviously in Lojban, cmavo will be shorter than any content > word, Not in principle. There are CVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV cmavo, in principle. > (I'm > surprised that there has seldom been criticism of re'a, which I myself > thought was a questionable addition, deferring to people with more > mathematical orientations.) It's disyllabic. There is no shortage of bisyllabic cmavo space. > it is important that there be short ways to say acronyms even when they > don't use Lojban-alphabet lerfu, Not so important that the need has manifested itself in usage yet... --And.