From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Sep 27 09:44:11 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 57609 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2007 16:44:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (69.147.108.201) by m51.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2007 16:44:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.4) by mta2.grp.re1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2007 16:44:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 23947 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2007 16:44:09 -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 16:44:09 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IawT8-00018d-RZ for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:44:07 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IawSm-00016f-P1; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:43:46 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IawRs-00016Z-7Z for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:42:48 -0700 Received: from netscaler1.rice.edu ([128.42.205.5] helo=mh3.mail.rice.edu) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IawRq-00015u-Am for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:42:48 -0700 Received: from mh3.mail.rice.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mh3.mail.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE763288119 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:42:39 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-2.4.4 at mh3.mail.rice.edu Received: from mh3.mail.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mh3.mail.rice.edu (mh3.mail.rice.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r-lql0qB-7NQ for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:42:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from Starlight (student-109-mar142-225.rice.edu [10.109.142.225]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mh3.mail.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4DD2880F7 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:42:31 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:40:16 -0600 Message-ID: <00b901c8012d$77fcee40$e18e6d0a@Starlight> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C800FB.2D627E40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 Thread-Index: AcgBLXEfuyKDJZdgRl2xmPqrYGizZw== X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 1 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 13863 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mls1@rice.edu X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 1 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: "Marjorie Scherf" From: "Marjorie Scherf" Reply-To: mls1@rice.edu Subject: [lojban] What is lojbo? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=OM1RixGRPi48PHw3GECQ6xOSfODk3WYGSPAnZmMNel1Ef6k5FA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 28337 ------=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C800FB.2D627E40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. mu'omi'e .skaryzgik. _________________________________________________ .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 ------=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C800FB.2D627E40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A discussion was started on the beginners list t= hat seemed to fit better here. The question is whether something can be a Lojba= nic 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 t= o 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 Lojb= an ways to name them that it is pointless to use {bu} at all in these beginner= s' discussions. Things like {wybu} or its analogs {qybu} or {hybu} seem like i= nconsistent hybrids. But then, I've only been learning for a few months, and it is poss= ible that there are years of precedents for this kind of thing that I missed.

 

mu'omi'e .skaryzgik.

 

_________________________________________= ________

.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

 

------=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C800FB.2D627E40--