From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Thu Oct 16 11:14:51 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 29505 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2003 18:14:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Oct 2003 18:14:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Oct 2003 18:14:51 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.22) id 1AACe9-0004NX-Gl for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:14:49 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AACdO-0004MY-9s; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:14:02 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41902.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.153]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AACcm-0004LH-Vj for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:13:25 -0700 Message-ID: <20031016181252.9273.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:12:52 PDT Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: Posterity Badness. To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20031016173454.GV28761@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 6446 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 X-list: lojban-list From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20927 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > 'angeli'. > > Other than that, no idea. Having seen the word 'angeli', I simply > assumed that it was written by a very poor Lojbanist, and didn't > read the rest. I'm rather surprised to find out I was wrong. That's an odd reaction. {angeli} is a valid fu'ivla, it is the type of culturally specific word that fu'ivla were meant for, and on top of that it has seen some usage other than in this piece. I remembered having read this passage on the list before, though I didn't remember it was from tsali. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com