From graywyvern@hotmail.com Fri Oct 20 12:19:26 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: graywyvern@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 20 Oct 2000 19:19:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 11365 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2000 19:19:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Oct 2000 19:19:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2000 19:19:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: graywyvern@hotmail.com Received: from [10.1.10.127] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Oct 2000 19:19:24 -0000 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:19:18 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: RE:literalism Message-ID: <8sq5rm+ufag@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <17.c8683c2.2721d013@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 515 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 209.176.48.23 From: "michael helsem" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4633 --- In lojban@egroups.com, pycyn@a... wrote: li'o > Of the dozen or so recognized ways of constructing tanru and lujvo, giving > only two (modifier-modified and overlap) seems restrictive even for a > literalist i was referring to Nick's paper (which actually distinguishes three), which in the Red Book are called "symmetric" & "asymmetric" lujvo. if i wanted to, i could describe many more varieties, but only "good" & "bad" seem relevant at this point. (maybe "GLIKAI" & "NALGLIKAI"?)