From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Apr 29 07:52:53 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 29 Apr 2003 14:52:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 85035 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2003 14:22:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2003 14:22:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2003 14:22:15 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19AVzq-0006Fr-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:22:14 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AVzU-0006E1-00; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:21:52 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AVz8-0006Cq-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:21:30 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3TEXKsr005275 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:33:20 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3/Submit) id h3TEXJoq005274 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:33:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:33:19 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb) Message-ID: <20030429143319.GA5227@allusion.net> References: <20030428205116.GH22216@digitalkingdom.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20030428212900.0390d0b0@pop.east.cox.net> <20030429033514.76205c83.rizen@surreality.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030429033514.76205c83.rizen@surreality.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 5005 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19485 --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:35:14AM -0700, Theodore Reed wrote: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:37:08 -0400 > Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > >This topic was inspired by Holy Usage, not pure abstract > > >tinkering. > >=20 > > It was inspired by jboske-ist habits, and people forgetting that the > > byfy is NOT jboske. >=20 > Well, to be fair, I'm no a jboskepre, but I have occaisionally written > ka'enai by accident. (Simply not realizing that nai can't go there, even > though it seems like it should.) It only seems like it should because you mislearned CAhA. CAhA are not analagous to PU and FAhA; check your BNF. > Does this justify a language change? Probably not. (Although I must say > that aestetically (probably misspelled that), ka'enai sounds much nicer > than na'eka'e.) na ka'e sounds even better. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline [Attachment content not displayed.] --dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--