From sentto-44114-19907-1053958397-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Mon May 26 07:14:09 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 26 May 2003 07:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n16.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.71]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KIjV-0003Kv-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 07:13:49 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-19907-1053958397-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.94] by n16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2003 14:13:18 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 15686 invoked from network); 26 May 2003 14:13:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 May 2003 14:13:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n27.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.83) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 May 2003 14:13:16 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.169] by n27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 26 May 2003 14:13:15 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030525232930.030d4260@pop.east.cox.net> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "jjllambias2000" X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 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: Mon, 26 May 2003 14:13:14 -0000 Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-archive-position: 5405 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list la lojbab cusku di'e > >In any case, the best way to oppose these words is to provide > >good canonical alternatives, as Nick said. > > Nora suggested that no noncanonical word should be allowed to be added to > the jbovlaste UNLESS a canonical (perhaps longer) alternative has already > been added. That seems to put the onus on the wrong party. If I wanted {parji} to be adopted then I'd be tempted to enter an unappealing canonical alternative so that it won't really compete with my proposal. Adding {brodr-} to a gismu form will always result in a valid fu'ivla. So an automatic way of canonizing experimental gismu would be to prefix them with brodr-, as in {brodrparji}. mu'o mi'e xorxes ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/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/