From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Aug 29 18:49:43 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 49531 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2004 01:49:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Aug 2004 01:49:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Aug 2004 01:49:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1C1bIT-0006jN-RW for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:49:26 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C1bHn-0006ij-2I; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:48:43 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:48:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1C1bHc-0006iP-IA for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:48:32 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:48:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20040830014832.GM19475@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <200408292141.47918.phma@phma.hn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200408292141.47918.phma@phma.hn.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i X-archive-position: 8577 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: made-up examples? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22992 On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 09:41:47PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: > Are BPFK members allowed to make up examples of usage? pne's sig > has three of my cmavo in one sentence, and I can find {tu'o} > easily enough, but I don't think there's been much use of {ci'i} > in its different mathematical senses. Yes, absolutely. Several of xorxes' examples are artificial. I tried not to in my case, because it didn't seem to be necessary. -Robin