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 UAA32204 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 20:12:50 +0200 Message-Id: <199601111812.UAA32204@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 43D03E15 ; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 19:12:50 +0100 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 12:11:16 -0600 Reply-To: Scott Brickner Sender: Lojban list From: Scott Brickner Subject: Re: FAQ X-To: Logical Language Group X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 10 Jan 1996 23:56:23 EST.) <199601110456.XAA18603@access1.digex.net> Content-Length: 941 Lines: 16 Logical Language Group writes: >Yes there are harder cases than spaghetti to Lojbanize, either because of >consonant endings, or non-Lojbanic sounds, or whatever. In the case of >schooner, a quick trip to the dictionary tells me to make it a lujvo - >a 2-pole-sail-boat, since thats eems to be the definition of "schooner" as a >boat (if it is more specific, I might add up to two more terms before going >to a fu'ivla other than for nonce use, since outside the USA, probably >noo one will know what a "schooner" is anyway - it is flagged as an Americanism >in my dictionary - maybe a merko-2-pole-sail-boat 1/2 %^) Well, then, maybe schooner isn't the best choice, either. I mentioned it because it's given as an example in the refgrammar text on selbri. My point is that "spaghetti" is too easy to lojbanize for the example. It leaves the reader with the notion that, e.g., "rutypitc", "samymakintoc", and "birjylagr" are good lujvo.