From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jul 06 16:51:30 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:51:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fydcl-0000j9-7t for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:51:11 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.179]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fydck-0000iu-Ae for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:51:11 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id i49so420964pyi for ; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:51:09 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Zm6N1ZGpWqbjttVGWAdu4gbyWlVLiDh1oRGbCiRa3Mw8DeFgIGdI8Iu7g7Z1KrchCPUaz6JO5b4ShSFIQc+YGgv05PXGAxJEzqtmwiyVrYI07BYtgyb9VV3w8DgV3d0eZowRMGS9ufcmSFfHmVsdFpIcVBQtcBUXz4ioNfrF6sk= Received: by 10.35.90.20 with SMTP id s20mr1602617pyl; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607061651p19623e56x7c188368533f9c48@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:51:09 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Alphabet proposal one. In-Reply-To: <44AD673B.7060501@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <44AD673B.7060501@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 11942 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 7/6/06, Hugh O'Byrne wrote: > > I propose that the LLG give that community an official recommendation. The LLG has deferred matters concerning language design to the BPFK, which is already some three years late and counting in the fullfillment of its mission, so don't hold your breath for an official answer. As a personal, unofficial recommendation I would say use whichever alphabet you prefer. If your goal is to have as many people as possible read your Lojban, I recommend you use the Latin alphabet. If your goal is to promote the use of some other alphabet, then I recommend you use that other one. If the CLL or the BPFK ever come to treat the question, my vote will be for it not to declare any alphabet official, since I don't really see the point of having an official alphabet. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.