Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 34042 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2005 02:21:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jan 2005 02:21:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2005 02:21:40 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CleKH-00056X-7j for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:21:37 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CleJy-0003SH-5F; Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:21:18 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:21:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41907.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.158]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CleJl-0000bv-6d for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:21:06 -0800 Received: (qmail 87742 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Jan 2005 02:20:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20050104022029.87740.qmail@web41907.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.114.197.65] by web41907.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:20:29 PST Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 18:20:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20050104020025.23850.qmail@web51604.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-archive-position: 9159 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 X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: Lojban Lookup - program for Windows X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23553 Content-Length: 759 Lines: 34 > You see? There are many PRACTICAL factors to consider, > besides the idealistic factor of wanting a different > kind of symbol because the phoneme has a different > phonotactics! I don't disagree. > You didn't say this time > "A different phonetic behaviour entails necessarily > the use of a different class of symbol, whether or not > this compensates the problems this may cause elsewhere > is another matter"! I didn't say that about Lojban either. I don't remember saying any "entails necessarily". :) > Anyway, I was kidding. No ill feelings! Ni mencionarlo! :) mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com