Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA00807 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:05:31 +0200 Message-Id: <199512211105.NAA00807@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 16DD0B5F ; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 12:05:31 +0100 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 12:56:44 BG Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: {gliban} vs {inglic} To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 21 Dec 1995 10:52:31 GMT from Content-Length: 539 Lines: 12 On Thu, 21 Dec 1995 10:52:31 GMT Don Wiggins said: >Sometimes it seems that English usage dominates lojban. >(.eicai) We must strive to prevent this. [...] > >The use of "gliban." for English is the one area were lojban usage dominates. Ah, but the very existence of the gismu {glico} (without which the cmene {gliban} wouldn't exist either) certainly has to do with the dominant-ish status that English has (along with the rest of the source languages and some others). So Lojban dominates indirectly, in a manner of speaking. --Ivan