From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Sep 27 10:26:54 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 48853 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2007 17:26:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (69.147.108.200) by m44.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2007 17:26:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.4) by mta1.grp.re1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2007 17:26:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 9813 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2007 17:26:43 -0000 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 27 Sep 2007 17:26:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Iax8K-0002lq-Le for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:26:41 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Iax7u-0002jw-7s; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:26:16 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Iax6q-0002jq-7R for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:25:08 -0700 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Iax6m-0002jY-Nj for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:25:07 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so1430543uge for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.219.11 with SMTP id r11mr3865766ugg.1190913901141; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.21.2 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <12d58c160709271025t31569a42t8c6c20f0d7cd5555@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:25:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <00b901c8012d$77fcee40$e18e6d0a@Starlight> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2733_12116499.1190913901127" References: <00b901c8012d$77fcee40$e18e6d0a@Starlight> X-Google-Sender-Auth: fafb2c9f2e8224ab X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 13864 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: komfoamonan@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.4 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "komfo,amonan" From: "komfo,amonan" Reply-To: komfoamonan@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: What is lojbo? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=EtwriuKvyIdpGOcdxaEClWqdFT4DfDLM4BqI23etebQwsCEOHA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 28338 ------=_Part_2733_12116499.1190913901127 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 9/27/07, Marjorie Scherf wrote: > > A discussion was started on the beginners list that seemed to fit better > here. The question is whether something can be a Lojbanic way of talking > about something if it uses non-Lojban letters. For example, saying {wybu} to > talk about 'w'. It has been brought up that when talking to beginners, > discussions of letters are usually done in English. But it would seem to me > that if we're not worrying about Lojban names for things or Lojban ways to > name them that it is pointless to use {bu} at all in these beginners' > discussions. Things like {wybu} or its analogs {qybu} or {hybu} seem like > inconsistent hybrids. But then, I've only been learning for a few months, > and it is possible that there are years of precedents for this kind of thing > that I missed. > They don't parse. Non-lojbanic characters can only be expressed inside {la'o} and {zoi} quotes. Otherwise you have to use circumlocutions such as {y'y. bu} and those involving {lau} {zai} {tei}. .i ebu cusku lu .i sepli mi'o le panoxa cibjmagutci fa la ke'avro .ije ma'a > ponse lo culno me la betsis. me'u .e lo xadba culno tanxe be lo zgikrkazu'u > .ije manku .ije mi'o dasni lo solri le'otci li'u .i jy. cusku lu ko .e mi > klama li'u > u'i i mi stidi lu le cibjmagutci be li pa no xa li'u i mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan ------=_Part_2733_12116499.1190913901127 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 9/27/07, Marjorie Scherf <mls1@rice.edu> wrote:

A discussion was started on the beginners list that seemed to fit better here. The question is whether something can be a Lojbanic way of talking about something if it uses non-Lojban letters. For example, saying {wybu} to talk about 'w'. It has been brought up that when talking to beginners, discussions of letters are usually done in English. But it would seem to me that if we're not worrying about Lojban names for things or Lojban ways to name them that it is pointless to use {bu} at all in these beginners' discussions. Things like {wybu} or its analogs {qybu} or {hybu} seem like inconsistent hybrids. But then, I've only been learning for a few months, and it is possible that there are years of precedents for this kind of thing that I missed.


They don't parse. Non-lojbanic characters can only be expressed inside {la'o} and {zoi} quotes. Otherwise you have to use circumlocutions such as {y'y. bu} and those involving {lau} {zai} {tei}.

.i ebu cusku lu .i sepli mi'o le panoxa cibjmagutci fa la ke'avro .ije ma'a ponse lo culno me la betsis. me'u .e lo xadba culno tanxe be lo zgikrkazu'u .ije manku .ije mi'o dasni lo solri le'otci li'u .i jy. cusku lu ko .e mi klama li'u

u'i i mi stidi lu le cibjmagutci be li pa no xa li'u i mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan
 


------=_Part_2733_12116499.1190913901127--