From thinkit8@lycos.com Mon Oct 08 08:44:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 8 Oct 2001 15:42:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 19830 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2001 15:42:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 8 Oct 2001 15:42:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n27.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.135) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Oct 2001 15:44:45 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: thinkit8@lycos.com Received: from [10.1.10.107] by n27.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Oct 2001 15:44:45 -0000 Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 15:44:38 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: broken phone Message-ID: <9pshl6+7nkq@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <20011008015019.B1787@twcny.rr.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1810 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.255.70 From: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11451 --- In lojban@y..., Rob Speer wrote: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 11:51:58PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Rob Speer wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 04:14:18PM +0200, G. Dyke wrote: > > > > Coi rodo > > > > > > > > For those of you who participated (and those who didn't) here is the broken > > > > phone chain (At last ! Sorry but I was away all week and didn't expect it to > > > > be all over 24 hours after And received Pierre's translation). I did my > > > > translation trying to keep the word-order as close to the original as > > > > possible. I also created lujvo to replace single words and tanru for the > > > > others. (You may notice that I follow the model set by Don in '96 for the > > > > compiling of all this). I apologize for the length of this mail. > > > > > > I think trying to preserve word order and the number of words actually caused > > > some of the confusion. > > > > I surely hope nobody tried to maintain such a language-specific and > > meaningless aspect like word number. > > Well, I wouldn't have put it quite so harshly, but Greg does say he > created lujvo to replace single words. And yes, I agree that's a bad > idea. > > In general, my opinion on lujvo is that you should use them when usage > has established the word, when you need a specific place structure, or > when the components act in a defined way that you couldn't get with > tanru (like {cargau}). All other times, use tanru. > > -- > la rab.spir > noi gumrysarji that makes sense. also don't forget "zei", which helps especially beginners who haven't gotten down all the rafsi yet. it allows you essentially to not use rafsi all together (may be especially important considering we don't know if the word morphology is correct).