Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 29 Sep 1993 15:05:52 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 29 Sep 1993 15:05:43 -0400 Message-Id: <199309291905.AA24105@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2121; Wed, 29 Sep 93 15:04:01 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0345; Wed, 29 Sep 93 15:06:29 EDT Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 19:55:10 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: jbobau (Was: use "lojbau" not "lojban") X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 29 Sep 93 13:41:05 N.) Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Wed Sep 29 20:55:10 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Colin says: > And says: > ++++++++> > It would be preferable when speaking in lojban of lojban to use > "le/lo lojbau/lobybau/lohorbau/lojbangu/lobybangu/lohorbangu/etc." > >++++++++ > I take the point, And, and I think it's worth making (though > given what a name means, it's not really a problem) - > but please, if you're going to post something like this, > get it right. > > The valid lujvo forms for lojbo bangu are > > lojbybangu > lobybangu > jbobangu > lojbybau > lobybau > jbobau > > only. (I prefer jbobau, or lojbybau if I think the recipient > is likely to have trouble recognising that). > > 'lojbau' is 'logji bangu' (logical language - and let's not suppose > lo jbobau is that zo'o je'unai) > 'lo'orbau' is 'slovo bangu' (Slavic language - howzat!) Yes, sorry. When I wrote 'loj' I meant 'jbo'. 'loho' must have been reassigned in the rafsi change: I learnt my few rafsi from an old list before the revision. I prefer "jbobau" too. If the recipient is going to have trouble understanding it you could also have "lojbo zei bangu". ------- And