From sentto-44114-2602-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Mon May 08 22:21:53 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 23003 invoked from network); 8 May 2000 22:21:52 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 8 May 2000 22:21:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 4325 invoked by uid 40001); 8 May 2000 22:22:55 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 4322 invoked from network); 8 May 2000 22:22:55 -0000 Received: from ch.egroups.com (207.138.41.144) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 8 May 2000 22:22:55 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2602-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 May 2000 22:22:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 18786 invoked from network); 8 May 2000 22:22:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 May 2000 22:22:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy.cais.net) (205.252.14.63) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 May 2000 22:22:53 -0000 Received: from bob (ppp48.net-A.cais.net [205.252.61.48]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA23346 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 17:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000508171751.00ac0190@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 To: lojban@egroups.com In-Reply-To: <8e.4c26f57.26485edc@aol.com> From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 17:23:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Lojbanizing my (nick)name Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At 02:18 PM 05/08/2000 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 5/8/00 5:42:43 AM CST, d.gudlat@rpluss.com writes: ><< My mind keeps on suggesting "la mlatupren." as a lujvo-based name > but I haven't yet worked through the lujvo-making rules to see if > this is correct. Anyone? >> >It has to be {mlatypren} for a lujvo, but your form is OK for a name -- I >think. For the werewolf analogy, I would toss a {binxo} in between {mlatu} >and {prenu}, but that is literalism at work again. Names do not need to match lujvo making rules, except in avoiding illegal consonant clusters. mlatupren would be an good name, but not a good lujvo, since you cannot drop the final vowel. But the optimal form would I think be latpre[n] with the 'n' added for the name-form. For the lujvo, I might use latjolpre (mlatu joi prenu), (in preference to binxo) but I would be more inclined to use remna instead of prenu, because my cats, while not in the least human/werecats are already prenu. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com: http://click.egroups.com/1/3555/3/_/17627/_/957824574/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com