Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 16 Oct 2002 18:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n8.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.92]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 181z7U-0004No-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 18:06:36 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-16730-1034812622-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.192] by n8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Oct 2002 23:57:03 -0000 X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_1); 16 Oct 2002 23:57:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 78039 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2002 23:57:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Oct 2002 23:57:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 2002 23:57:01 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:30:04 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:53:51 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 To: lojban From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:53:37 +0100 Subject: [lojban] jvoste Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2224 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Content-Length: 954 Lines: 22 Are the lujvo in NORALUJV.txt drawn from usage, or were they thought up by the compiler of the list? Are the lujvo in NORALUJV.tx well-formed by the standard criteria of appositeness and seljvajvohood? What processes are in place for sifting usage for new lujvo? Should we each be making the effort to document our lujvo usage? Is anyone studying rafsi preferences? The lujvo in the jvoste are listed in their shortest possible form, but I dimly recall Nick (or someone) researching the issue several years ago and finding that CXXCy rafsi were preferred to CVCy and CV'V(r). --And. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/