Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI,@SEARN.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0ouugS-0000PaC; Thu, 4 Nov 93 04:44 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 9129; Thu, 04 Nov 93 04:44:37 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9128; Thu, 4 Nov 1993 04:44:36 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6997; Thu, 4 Nov 1993 03:43:51 +0100 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 21:41:28 EST Reply-To: Jorge LLambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge LLambias Subject: Re: TECH: more thoughts on zi'o X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 432 Lines: 13 la and cusku di'e > Ziho changes the meaning in an only partly guessable way. > > What we shd be deciding is not whether a place is zihoable (every place > is) but whether it is likely to be zihoed very very often (assuming > it gets zihoed when it should). In this case there is a good Zipfean > case for altering the place structure to exclude the oft-zihoed > place from the definition. This is what I wanted to say. :) Jorge