From jcowan@reutershealth.com Mon May 10 13:42:18 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 May 2004 13:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [65.246.141.36] (helo=mail.reutershealth.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BNHbF-00088R-Jh for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 13:42:10 -0700 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (mail [65.246.141.36]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA08412 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 16:35:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 10 May 2004 16:42:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:42:02 -0400 From: jcowan@reutershealth.com To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: "Mooooos" (Re: my new idea for onomato's) (rspeer) Message-ID: <20040510204202.GC8616@skunk.reutershealth.com> References: <20040510000710.GA20485@mit.edu> <20040510202434.GZ8616@skunk.reutershealth.com> <20040510203247.GR5570@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040510203247.GR5570@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-archive-position: 7766 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > Right, but the repetition could be 5,739 letters away. Even if > > computers can handle that (with annoying hacks), humans can't: if you > > have fubarbazamkuuks...tatatututitifubarbazamkuuks...tatatututito, you > > have to then jump back to the beginning and reanalyze it, now that you > > see that this is not a reduplication. > > How is that different from zoi? My understanding was that the syntax would be sa'ei (arbitrary letters) (same arbitrary letters). The zoi delimiter has to be a Lojban word, however long, and really long Lojban words are unpronounceable because you run out of breath and pauses are not permitted within a word. (One of the reasons for zei, though not the original one, which was to get fu'ivla into lujvo.) > Which should always be used for that sort of thing anyways. Last I > checked, cows do not speak Lojban, hence either zoi or la'o should be > used. la'o would mean that a cow's utterance is named Muumuu, rather than actually being "muumuu". -- Dream projects long deferred John Cowan usually bite the wax tadpole. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --James Lileks http://www.reutershealth.com