From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri Oct 17 06:58:20 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 4786 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2003 13:58:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Oct 2003 13:58:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Oct 2003 13:58:19 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.22) id 1AAV7R-0004mA-KW for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:58:17 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AAV6u-0004lR-09; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:57:44 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AAV6c-0004kt-9w for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:57:26 -0700 Message-ID: <20031017135647.47282.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:56:47 PDT Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: Posterity Badness. To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20031016233042.GL1016@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 6454 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: 20935 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > I don't like type-4. I *especially* don't like type-4 when > the concept is trivially expressible with a lujvo (in this case > cesru'i or cesycrida, take your pick). They may both be objectionable, at least for some, from a Christian point of view. {cesru'i} would seem to correspond better to the Holy Spirit, and some people might not like to lump angels with mythical beings. Etymologically, I believe "angel" is from the Greek for "messenger", and I think someone once proposed {cevnoibei}. But then prophets are messengers of God too, aren't they? > And I had no idea it was valid. My internal Lojban recognizer > screamed at the sight of it (a comment Bob has also often made), and > cmafihe choked on it. Maybe because it starts with a vowel. Something like {xangeli} blends in more easily with "normal" Lojban. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com