From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Dec 10 18:54:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 11 Dec 2002 02:54:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 29662 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2002 02:54:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Dec 2002 02:54:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 02:54:23 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Lx0w-0002FX-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:54:22 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Lx0R-0002F7-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:53:51 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:53:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Lwzp-0002Ey-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:53:13 -0800 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.38] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A89639E4005E; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:53:10 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: tags Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:53:11 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20021211004659.GA49678@allusion.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.38] X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted X-archive-position: 3433 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: raganok@intrex.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: raganok@intrex.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 17914 >> Is it just me or does "lojban lo lojbo bangu" strike anyone else as >> unlojbanic? It seems like it is a horrible malglico translation. Why not >> "la lojban no'u le logji bangu"? (Note that I use logji, not lojbo. ) >Yup. And the "le" instead of "lo". "no'u le" should probably become "noi" - "la lojban noi logji bangu" - since the le essentially undoes the demi-du of the no'u. This is part of why I feel most po'u constructions are to'e lobykai, but I don't feel like getting into that flamewar again.