From sentto-44114-2012-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Fri Feb 18 21:11:22 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 5720 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 21:11:21 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 21:11:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 14591 invoked by uid 40001); 18 Feb 2000 21:14:18 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 14588 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 21:14:17 -0000 Received: from fl.egroups.com (208.48.218.18) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 21:14:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2012-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Feb 2000 21:14:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 28964 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2000 21:14:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.10.36 with QMQP; 18 Feb 2000 21:14:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fb04.eng00.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.170) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2000 21:14:10 -0000 Received: from [207.69.115.26] (user-37kas0u.dialup.mindspring.com [207.69.112.30]) by fb04.eng00.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA29336; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:13:34 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: rmcivor@m3.sprynet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000218133217.00a53b40@127.0.0.1> References: <200002171027.CAA22319@mailbox1.ucsd.edu> To: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" , "Vjacxeslav' Ivanov'" , "A Rosta" Cc: loglanists@ucsd.edu, logli@ucsd.edu, lojban@onelist.com, a.rosta@pmail.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:57:51 -0500 From: "Robert A. McIvor" Subject: Re: RE: Re[2]: [lojban] Dr. James Cooke Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Robert A. McIvor" At 2:23 PM -0500 2/18/00, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: >From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" >Lojban on the other hand has optional aspectual tenses (like Russian) as >well as simple tenses, and no doubt Slavik can understand that there can be >difficulties in translating both perfective and imperfective tenses into >the simple tenses of the classical language. > I, for one, would not be averse to expanding the Loglan tense system. Additions to Loglan, that conform with the basic principles, as Lojban claims it does, would be easy to accept. > >Incidentally, the latter discussion points out the one problem with the >"hoa" and "xo'a" introducers of the other language/dialect - while the two >words look different in print, in speech they would likely be heard as the >same word in either version, and thus be ineffective at indicating a change >in dialect. Indeed, in our alternate orthography originally established to >make rapprochement based on Lojban more attractive to the TLI Loglan >community, the alternate orthography form of "xo'a" is exactly "hoa". > But is this a problem? It would be considered a 'switch' word, which when heard by a Lojbanist would prepare same for Loglan, and vice versa for a Loglanist. When the word was heard again, a new switch would be expected. Sincerely, Robert A. McIvor (rmcivor@mac.com) --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no hidden fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com