From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 11 06:46:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 11 Sep 2002 13:46:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 15112 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 13:46:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2002 13:46:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 13:46:12 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.176.e4f868f (3948) for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:46:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <176.e4f868f.2ab0a31f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:46:07 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Archive location. To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_176.e4f868f.2ab0a31f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15548 --part1_176.e4f868f.2ab0a31f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 9:18:05 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > The lujvo in the lujvo list are almost entirely literal... In fact, > I don't believe I've seen a single figurative one from it yet, and > this is the source for all my lujvo needs (I think one-off inventions > of lujvo are generally not worth it; or at least i'm not fast enough > with it for real conversations, and I don't desire the meaning of > my utterances to be changed after the fact when that lujvo gets a > real, assigned, dictionary definition). > > Culling things out for length is good; starting with metaphorical > crud that only works based on interpreting things in an english > context is not. >> The lujvo list I have is pretty much taken up by chicken-shit forms like {selbroda} from {se broda} and a few 2nd-place inclusions. It has yet to turn up a wors I have needed for anything and I don't do very recondite stuff. What is the actual source of this list? It looks like an exercise in creating just such lujvo, without any regard to practical needs. It is surely not based on actual text, since the good ones I have ssen are not there and the ones there turn up in text only after the fact and as used by newbies who haven't got the hand of making their own. I am sorry to hear that Jordan has so little to say that this list is adequate for his purposes (or that he strains it to such an extent that he can make it work). Of course, he may have a different list from the one I have, Nick & Nora as of 12/00 -- purporting to be a comilation of something or other unspecified (but containing no Helmsem, for example). --part1_176.e4f868f.2ab0a31f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 9:18:05 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:

<<
The lujvo in the lujvo list are almost entirely literal... In fact,
I don't believe I've seen a single figurative one from it yet, and
this is the source for all my lujvo needs (I think one-off inventions
of lujvo are generally not worth it; or at least i'm not fast enough
with it for real conversations, and I don't desire the meaning of
my utterances to be changed after the fact when that lujvo gets a
real, assigned, dictionary definition).

Culling things out for length is good; starting with metaphorical
crud that only works based on interpreting things in an english
context is not.

>>

The lujvo list I have is pretty much taken up by chicken-shit forms like {selbroda} from {se broda} and a few 2nd-place inclusions.  It has yet to turn up a wors I have needed for anything and I don't do very recondite stuff. 
What is the actual source of this list?  It looks like an exercise in creating just such lujvo, without any regard to practical needs.  It is surely not based on actual text, since the good ones I have ssen are not there and the ones there turn up in text only after the fact and as used by newbies who haven't got the hand of making their own.
I am sorry to hear that Jordan has so little to say that this list is adequate for his purposes (or that he strains it to such an extent that he can make it work). 
Of course, he may have a different list from the one I have, Nick & Nora as of 12/00 -- purporting to be a comilation of something or other unspecified (but containing no Helmsem, for example). --part1_176.e4f868f.2ab0a31f_boundary--