Received: from mail-bw0-f211.google.com ([209.85.218.211]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NgOAm-0003VF-UC for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:01:07 -0800 Received: by bwz3 with SMTP id 3so2927937bwz.33 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:00:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Vvrq0wpccq4MsaKey6eEOtXK28lN0fMtCQm8gQIn90Y=; b=p6edStfbflFsugWJwvoGvnvgaWsdmZUle9MQatcBOCM/hpoRi6NA16aWbY/N4XhPUt h8S55LvVU2yvg1reCny2fnMSfN28YwneVbcTU3F1g2yBV9OvD1w6XJs1quiHwb0OGpjA b+3bZsHNp0Vi//cYwh3ScLEuz5uObCG2teoCU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=X/mlPC75Fp+GO2kccfvVUhazqcteOA19INZKac1DqEGwBb9qWmkvQyfvHksdMPPosx nhrlNpJ53/O9SKEF/kenT40Qjc+Zz1e0CBhpkzKshw7XiBLFuYVuOXFQqyvp+WkqBwb9 CcZYyqYFNHqla80hFMUC5PiZaqx9kYGtXn4W0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.144.78 with SMTP id y14mr1852061bku.194.1266091254271; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:00:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <603837.24036.qm@web88006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <218950.62113.qm@web46104.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <425e4ac21002081956jb0e0de5n98a1a5446c4f7609@mail.gmail.com> <201002090214.40868.phma@phma.optus.nu> <702226df1002090821m1703c5a8l569467a229bb024@mail.gmail.com> <4B768767.1030503@perpetuum-immobile.de> <239148.11993.qm@web88003.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <925d17561002130719v15abf785sb4b1ca7e30e6fdaf@mail.gmail.com> <603837.24036.qm@web88006.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:00:54 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17561002131200h2db26a0cpf6fe34c623359016@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Help! The Xorlo are attacking! From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 1345 Lines: 36 On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 4:44 PM, A. PIEKARSKI wrote: >> From: Jorge Llamb=EDas > >> At some point, after CLL and LfB were >> written, we decided that using "cmene" in English with this specialized >> meaning was a bad idea, because "cmene" doesn't mean and never meant tha= t in >> Lojban. > > I understand what you are saying.=A0 But when you say "we", do you mean t= he BPFK > (i.e. is it 'official')? I mean we the English speaking Lojban community. The BPFK does not have any authority on the English language, does it? > And where is this decision 'enshrined'?=A0 Shouldn't it be on some > BPFK page on the wiki?=A0 After all, when there is an apparent discrepenc= y between > CLL and jbovlaste, most people who don't know the history will likely cho= ose CLL as > the final authority. I don't think any of those have any official authority on English usage any= way. Are you concerned about the meaning of "cmene" and "cmevla" as used in Lojban, or as used in English jargon when talking about Lojban? "cmene" in Lojban has always meant "x1 is the name of x2 as used by x3", it has never meant "word form that ends in a consonant". "cmene" in English jargon is sometimes used to mean "Lojban word form that ends in a consonant", but now we prefer to use "cmevla" for that. mu'o mi'e xorxes