Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Message-Id: <9204021002.AA00748@relay1.UU.NET>
Date: Thu Apr  2 08:22:49 1992
Reply-To: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!POSTMASTER>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
Comments:     <Parser> W: Invalid RFC822 field -- "(5.64+1.3.1+0.50); id
              AA11560 Thu, 2 Apr 1992 19:". Rest of header flushed.
Comments:     <Parser> E: "From:"/"Sender:" field is missing.
From: Undetermined origin c/o Postmaster <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!POSTMASTER>
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Apr  2 08:22:49 1992
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN

        From nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU Thu Apr  2 19:49:07 1992
        Received: from munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU by mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU with SMTP
(911016.SGI)
                id AA03199; Thu, 2 Apr 92 19:49:07 +1000
        Received: by munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU id AA02495
          (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for nsn@mundil.cs.mu.oz.au); Thu, 2 Apr 1992 19:48:57
 +1000
        Received: from munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU by mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (4.1)
                id AA27848; Thu, 2 Apr 92 12:00:39 EST
        Received: by munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU with SMTP id AA20509
          (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <nsn>); Thu, 2 Apr 1992 12:00:24 +1000
        Message-Id: <199204020200.AA20509@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU>
        To: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@cogsci.edinburgh.ac.uk>,
                lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
        Cc: Nick Nicholas <nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU>, nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU
        Subject: Re: 1.4.
        In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Apr 92 14:50:48 BST."
        Date: Thu, 02 Apr 92 12:00:24 +1000
        From: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU




        Ivan, even if la'o-ing himself, does it again. Good use of UI, good
 choice
        of words and all. Two comments:

        >ni'o mu'a ka'u lo'e prenrgabrovo cu ka'arvi'u le rebla be levo'a mlatu
        >tezu'e lenu ri sutra leka pagre le vorme kei seri'a lenu le kumfa
        >nenri cu na lenku binxo

        One. It'd be nicer stylistically if we killed one abstraction in there -
        {sutra pagre} isn't all that ambiguous.
        Two. I kept saying "where's the punchline". Um... sorry about that.

        >to zo'ocu'i su'oko ri la lojban. xamgu fanva toi

        u'ocu'izo'oru'e. {la'elo munje} or {lei se munjyzda}? Oh, and why the
 {pu}
        in {zatsta}? Last time I checked, the world still existed...

        >ni'o ko di'i cmila

        go'ira'o

        co'omi'e nitcion.