From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jun 20 07:57:02 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:57:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9i2w-0001nH-Kp for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:57:02 -0700 Received: from el-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.162.179]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9i2s-0001n0-8b for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:57:02 -0700 Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id z25so53749ele.1 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:56:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=/1G1Dz+rfvjQ1WwdD5rPCZjPsDhsmhu34YYlU20WY4A=; b=rdsL5p8nbfugCnATZnlSaQ/JgsT/WzlPGmW6Ux1eE4ics9vzbES2zpXObqwcRPti8X jW7kz5fX2deCfA6o5hJrISnxdrQGKWrZHwbgOxWqeigacL9Nwh3v/d/gYzi4KUtP3BMC L2VHsoeU3Kmo+XCxr+jUc+fGzcipsr4fZqPmg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=SQaeuGgM1R/DEKuSjjGJhNZ3xb8dkqHmrZRP3U8fOx9F3iLzsJkQL/vqY4XN+K1Fhb Wbq+kS/ySBG9+GVpvwOi7bdcWgLYnOHIjwnfVu1JfaAsj6CjeCYOUbHslXJi2gKUfl1O sINlvkVfvnI2/Slnn/oRGHS0Ud4u2WY8zwqXk= Received: by 10.142.171.6 with SMTP id t6mr311964wfe.229.1213973816336; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.50.4 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <12d58c160806200756y3b5d3ecdi45cd638bd803c321@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:56:56 -0400 From: "komfo,amonan" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: lojgloss extraneous characters In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7306_2279284.1213973816385" References: <737b61f30806180402g18ece640m43e0d18642c2280e@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: e4d071fdfea55262 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14527 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: komfoamonan@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_7306_2279284.1213973816385 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Chris Capel wrote: How should I handle non-lojban characters? I can strip out some that > should be superfluous, and others that I can't make any sense out of, > but should I translate some characters into cmavo? I'm thinking of > parentheses, braces, and brackets here. I could translate parentheses > into to-toi, and square brackets into sei-se'u. Any other ideas? > > Should I just ignore any random non-lojban characters? > I think it's probably best to leach this shorthand out of Lojban usage. It feels like a natlang security blanket to me, and seems to run counter to the principle of audiovisual isomorphism. A problem with numerals that hasn't been brought up (at least in this thread) is: don't most non-anglophone countries use "," where anglophones use "." and a space or "." where we use "," (i.e. 186,282.397 == 186 282,397 == 186.282,397)? Of course, the downside is that use of English-style numerals in Lojban text is semi-standard & well represented in Lojban text to date, including the instructional materials. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan ------=_Part_7306_2279284.1213973816385 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Chris Capel wrote:

How should I handle non-lojban characters? I can strip out some that
should be superfluous, and others that I can't make any sense out of,
but should I translate some characters into cmavo? I'm thinking of
parentheses, braces, and brackets here. I could translate parentheses
into to-toi, and square brackets into sei-se'u. Any other ideas?

Should I just ignore any random non-lojban characters?

I think it's probably best to leach this shorthand out of Lojban usage. It feels like a natlang security blanket to me, and seems to run counter to the principle of audiovisual isomorphism. A problem with numerals that hasn't been brought up (at least in this thread) is: don't most non-anglophone countries use "," where anglophones use "." and a space or "." where we use "," (i.e. 186,282.397 == 186 282,397 == 186.282,397)? Of course, the downside is that use of English-style numerals in Lojban text is semi-standard & well represented in Lojban text to date, including the instructional materials. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan



------=_Part_7306_2279284.1213973816385-- 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.