From BestATN@aol.com Fri Jul 20 18:53:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: BestATN@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 21 Jul 2001 01:53:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 63943 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2001 01:53:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Jul 2001 01:53:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Jul 2001 01:53:12 -0000 Received: from BestATN@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.114.1f347e3 (4542) for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <114.1f347e3.288a3a7e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:53:02 EDT Subject: conversion lujvo To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_114.1f347e3.288a3a7e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10513 From: BestATN@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 8804 --part1_114.1f347e3.288a3a7e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit why are lujvo of converted gismu preferred over the bare converted gismu? e.g. why is [selcasnu] used instead of [se casnu] in the nuzban headings? it seems to me that [se casnu] should be used, since it's simpler and its component words are basic ones. steven lytle --part1_114.1f347e3.288a3a7e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit why are lujvo of converted gismu preferred over the bare converted gismu?
e.g. why is [selcasnu] used instead of [se casnu] in the nuzban headings?  it
seems to me that [se casnu] should be used, since it's simpler and its
component words are basic ones.  
steven lytle --part1_114.1f347e3.288a3a7e_boundary--