From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:59:08 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 25878 invoked from network); 26 Nov 1996 02:56:54 -0000 Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 26 Nov 1996 02:56:53 -0000 Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <9.51A0A9CA@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 3:56:51 +0100 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 21:55:58 -0500 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: subordinate interrogatives To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <199611251607.LAA16375@cs.columbia.edu> (message from And Rosta on Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:33:39 GMT+0) Content-Length: 1048 Lines: 21 Message-ID: >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:33:39 GMT+0 >From: And Rosta >Organization: University of Central Lancashire > >{kuau} is just an alternative to {loy duu}. It is not approved by >Lojban Central, because it is motivated solely by conceptual >elegance, and not by dire need. >The issue Jorge address is: What is the logical alternative to the >colloquial {mo kaw}? [& Xorxes gives the answer.] Your orthography gets harder to follow by the month. Why "kuau" for "ku'au" but "kaw" for "kau"? Why isn't it "kuaw"? At least be consistent. And what do you get by "loy" instaed of "loi"? Oh, loi for lo'i? It doesn't look to me like you're gaining anything but your own aesthetics, which doesn't seem reason enough to change a writing system that others are using beyond recognition (you don't go to France and say "You know what, guys? That cedilla is really dumb; from now on I'm writing it with an s.") Then again, I hypocritically support "h" as an alloglyph for ' in Lojban. Go figure. ~mark