From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Tue Feb 4 19:24:46 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Tue, 4 Feb 92 19:24 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA29019; Tue, 4 Feb 92 16:01:29 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA16139; Tue, 4 Feb 92 14:33:53 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA10971; Tue, 4 Feb 92 14:33:56 EST Message-Id: <9202041933.AA10971@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 0323; Tue, 04 Feb 92 14:32:42 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 7687; Tue, 04 Feb 92 14:32:21 EST Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 09:14:24 -0800 Reply-To: David Cortesi Sender: Lojban list Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was cortesi@CRICKHOLLOW.INFORMIX.COM From: David Cortesi X-To: lojban mailing list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO I got around to putting some of the changes Bob describes into my personal lojban reference last night (not all, there are way too many and I gave up and will wait for the PLS version...) but in doing so I noticed two possible problems. >"du" will be added to the [gismu] list as a result of being > assigned the rafsi "dub" and "du'o" There already exists gismu dunli "equals" with rafsi dun and du'i, so there are now four rafsi that can be used to say "equals" in a lujvo. This strikes me as excessive. It is not clear to me that (a) the distinction between "du" and "dunli" is clear/important enough to be made in lujvo (b) assuming the distinction is clear in isolation, that a lujvo allows that kind of precision anyway. Compare "dubvamji" to "dunvamji" ... > bilma x1 is military/regimented/strongly organized/prepared by > system xx for purpose x3 "bilma" means "ill" -- "bilni" is the gismu for "military." Simple mistake, easily spotted & corrected.