From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Nov 07 05:54:06 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:54:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KyRmo-0006dk-Fp for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:54:06 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.240]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KyRml-0006dS-FC for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:54:06 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so1145219rvf.46 for ; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:54:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=8zVBHL1ZZKstvU2v5OjJ1KmU+f1FFwsJzVHnYNnc+3A=; b=OErJhtpKXCE/2SRgbNrC60TEDoDzOJA08DaJrDqZUQkQ78S2IPdvuNNIUKeExcoR93 IeTMqqPRXIPz1asDnm/VHQvuyDbDD8EmeC7IMo851A38XGIquFOfn4nXu/Yj9Ti4vqnm XjoQL0qS8LpYShyQk6EjkZiyThvVNEQepKaWA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=I1XDlOIsXwGSixY4jMwPxfeRRxX3Lve9kBhhXUSYRBcbCHxi6TpRu+QEZKz6OGPnEV O9cT9CjgrtHlsRp3olejShYtW7nbVTPejKKGx3LeCJhA5yhHUIpLlWgJCnEpVXpY/LkA lc3lQeGvlB7Xx2Dj52vYzoCsZ1OOzdbhZvAYQ= Received: by 10.141.18.12 with SMTP id v12mr1784454rvi.187.1226066042236; Fri, 07 Nov 2008 05:54:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 05:54:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560811070554m1b3a060ds5904bb7451ce7920@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:54:02 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: la'e di'u (was: experimental cmavo in lojgloss.) In-Reply-To: <737b61f30811070541l45110d3dsc5144714e926e32d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <737b61f30811070541l45110d3dsc5144714e926e32d@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14947 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 Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Chris Capel wrote: > > You have to admit, it's a lot cleaner conceptually. What would be the > alternative? Keep di'u, and la'e, and add another cmavo (or several) > for la'e di'u simply because of the frequency of usage? That would be one possibility. "tei" and "tau" are what I would have liked for "la'e di'u" and "la'e de'u", or something like that. But I wouldn't mind not having "di'u" (and all its cousins) there in the first place. "lu'e tei", "lu'e tau" would have been the compounds to be used in the more rare cases when we do want to refer to the expressions themselves. >Given that the > ambiguity of la'e could stand to be fixed, would we rather add > variations on la'e, or single-cmavo variations on la'e di'u? What ambiguity do you have in mind? 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.