From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jun 21 13:56:11 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:56:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MIU5D-00056f-Cv for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:56:11 -0700 Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MIU58-00056G-OO for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:56:11 -0700 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (unknown [IPv6:2001:700:300:2000:2a0:c9ff:feab:76e2]) (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 B644C947F1; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:29:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id n5LKTukq022745; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:29:56 +0200 Received: (from arj@localhost) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id n5LKTtYW022744; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:29:55 +0200 Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:29:55 +0200 From: Arnt Richard Johansen To: Lindar Greenwood Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Regarding the gismu {vlagi}. Message-ID: <20090621202955.GC23324@nvg.org> References: <479039.23077.qm@web50403.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <479039.23077.qm@web50403.mail.re2.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.ntnu.no X-archive-position: 15681 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 Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 05:52:40PM -0700, Lindar Greenwood wrote: > > So, isn't {vlagi} just taking up space when we could just as easily use {fetplibu} and use {vlagi} for something else? > The use seems extremely redundant, and I would love to know the opinions of the Lojban community (and officials) on this matter. It is indeed redundant. But since the purpose of the set of gismu is not to remove redundancy, this is not considered a problem. See http://www.lojban.org/files/why-lojban/reply.txt for a discussion of this. (Search for 'seem to have been chosen at random'). -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Inuktitut iis eesseentiiaallyy Fiinniish aas spooqqeen iin Greenlaand. --Clint Jackson Baker, via Essentialist Explanations 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.