From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jan 26 11:42:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 7701 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2005 19:42:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Jan 2005 19:42:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2005 19:42:13 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Ctt3M-0003Sv-IA for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:42:12 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Ctt33-0003S5-O3; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:41:53 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:41:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Ctt2s-0003Rs-Ox for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:41:42 -0800 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:41:42 -0800 Message-ID: <20050126194142.GT20235@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20050126132740.61853.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050126132740.61853.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-archive-position: 9346 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: minimal lojban X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23727 On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 05:27:39AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > but i know there are bo and (ke, ke'i)... surely lojban isn't > > complete without these?? > > ke and ke'e are very rarely used. I'm actually starting to use them quite often, oddly enough. > bo is more often used in the {i bo} or the {na'e bo} > constructions than in tanru. In the end it's a matter of taste > whether you think ke-ke'e, bo or co is more essential for lojban. > I wouldn't include bo and ke-ke'e in my minimal lojban, but that's > just my point of view. If a minimal Lojban includes tanru, you *must* have one or the other, or you lose expressive power. As it seems to me that the goas here is to produce a Kernel Language for Lojban (that is, the most minimal set of Lojban from which all the rest of Lojban can be described as just shortcuts), you don't want to lose expressive power. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/