From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Nov 21 06:12:57 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:12:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GmWMU-00049w-SE for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:12:35 -0800 Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GmWMM-00049k-8I for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:12:34 -0800 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no [129.241.210.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FCA94795 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:12:10 +0100 (CET) From: Arnt Richard Johansen X-X-Sender: arj@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: ki'a In-Reply-To: <456226FC.3030801@lojban.org> Message-ID: References: <492596e80611182014o7608f9d3k76f7247f5926b98b@mail.gmail.com> <1df90d2b0611182026yeb05a5eo95f815883cb20fd@mail.gmail.com> <836504149.20061119104734@mail.ru> <4560FB73.5060706@lojban.org> <925d17560611201204l6a6b59dbuece7d7cb70a06e6b@mail.gmail.com> <456226FC.3030801@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 13233 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > Perhaps, those who are coining them may like them (until caught by a slinku'i > error), but those reading them and not familiar with them are probably more > likely to appreciate Type IIIs. I personally find type IVs MUCH more aesthetically pleasing than type IIIs. I usually only use type IIIs if there is a word-shape constraint (such as with samcrkasava), or when coining nonce fu'ivla on the fly. > fu'ivla remain BY POLICY, substandard Lojban, since this encourages the > preferred kind of word building using lujvo. Having fu'ivla be aesthetically > unpleasing to some people is supportive of this policy. If so, this policy is in IMHO very poorly advertised. The CLL says: # The intention is that (except in certain semantically broad but shallow # fields such as cultures, nations, foods, plants, and animals) suitable # lujvo can be devised to cover the ten million or so concepts expressible # in all the world's languages taken together. This is exactly the way that stage-IV lujvo are being used today. I am hard pressed to find *any* fu'ivla among the about two hundred currently in Jbovlaste that do not fit any of the above categories. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ "My speech recognition software may have trouble with ordinary words, but not with ketoprofen." --Magnus Itland 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.