From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Apr 06 18:27:11 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 59993 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2004 01:25:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Apr 2004 01:25:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2004 01:25:45 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BB1lx-0000xu-6m for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:22:33 -0700 Received: from dsl081-049-134.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.49.134] helo=chain.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BB1lI-0000xT-Aa; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:21:52 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ms-smtp-05-smtplb.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.5.135] helo=ms-smtp-05.tampabay.rr.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BB1l9-0000xK-SA for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:21:43 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.14] (45.171.204.68.cfl.rr.com [68.204.171.45] (may be forged)) by ms-smtp-05.tampabay.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i371Lc4F004759 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2004 21:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <20040406215404.47239.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040406215404.47239.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 21:20:51 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-archive-position: 7467 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rmcivor@macsrule.com X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robert McIvor From: Robert McIvor Reply-To: rmcivor@macsrule.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Opinions on "mi viska le sa .i mi cusku zo .djan." X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21938 On Apr 6, 2004, at 5:54 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 02:28:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: >>> {zei} makes lujvo, not the same thing. >> >> \/\/hatever. la mikce me la jivagos me'u, then. What, this comes up >> in >> everyday speech for you? > > (You usually won't need {me'u} there.) Modification of names with > brivla I would class as everyday speech, yes. > >>> But the main advantage is the reduction in useless proliferation of >>> selma'o. >> >> Not useless; it's already been shown that the proliferation allows >> eliding of a syllable in a very, very common case, which seems >> important >> to me. > > To me it is better if you just have to learn one pattern > (LE BRIVLA CU BRIVLA) instead of (LE/LA BRIVLA CU BRIVLA) > and (LA CMENE BRIVLA), even at the expense of that {cu}, > but that's just me. I suspect that the possibility of > {LA CMENE BRIVLA} existing is part of what makes the > common error {LE BRIVLA BRIVLA} so frequent. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes For what it's worth, I agree 100% with Jorge on these points. Loglan did put la and le into the same selmaho, though despite making the same argument about the common error le brivla brivla (in Loglan as in lojban), I (and several others) could not convince JCB that the cu/gu should be mandatory. If the mandatory pause after la Alis is written or spoken, (a comma in Loglan) our parser treats it as a gu/cu equivalent, mu'o mi'e bab > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway > http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ > >