From zefram@fysh.org Tue May 18 13:55:03 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 18 May 2004 13:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.167.170.152] (helo=bowl.fysh.org ident=mail) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.32) id 1BQBbx-0001BF-VJ for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 13:54:54 -0700 Received: from zefram by bowl.fysh.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BQBbs-0000O9-00; Tue, 18 May 2004 21:54:48 +0100 Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:54:48 +0100 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: "Do you speak Lojban?" Message-ID: <20040518205448.GB12891@fysh.org> References: <20040518200547.39167.qmail@web40411.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: Zefram X-archive-position: 7905 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: zefram@fysh.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Adam D. Lopresto wrote: >Yes, either of those would be perfectly fine. Personally, I'd use {.i xu do se >bangu la lojban}, feels more direct. If going in that direction, consider the more concise {xu do jbopli}. I'd favour {xu do cusku bau la lojban} or {xu do tavla fo la lojban}, depending on context. -zefram