From 3QRixSwoJBlY8y96XDIHFyMy5CC.0CA9C7zyB4CC4924FCIDG.0CA@groups.bounces.google.com Mon Mar 29 14:15:08 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f141.google.com ([209.85.210.141]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3QRixSwoJBlY8y96XDIHFyMy5CC.0CA9C7zyB4CC4924FCIDG.0CA@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NwMIY-0005QA-MJ for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:15:08 -0700 Received: by yxe5 with SMTP id 5sf744209yxe.2 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:14:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:message-id:x-ymail-osg:received :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FwnXW4XozBZxOXWQKSkvLl5kEbo5vQtpwja8fczCW54=; b=GkYt3n9kB4NLU7aA00ziMvK7K3354cOMt4cok1CvV6V6j82DTRBCbWRuQHD228vlZc 1pxGCSePiLzee45atmrZxsPVxoIh3qludcd3htXAoqB7oB09OZziWY06IQXzcAyuYR2w mv5x/qF/9CX2kWSItswpIAVqz91yk60gOVucg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references :date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=mTaIWRqJQthvV0D82HBXhikhRrHpJ5CQ0Sc2qalXXf1S3Vw8FcssFjoDLgh9AYR402 2M8lrF4jnD840BgaXstzfV81Lit4M5p36ci4MwepCRMQgt+RtV5rFtglj0b+TFK86QRq 4jrJ/61oB/h3T4qpNHpphm7O1ZSvL3uJjm5SU= Received: by 10.151.89.10 with SMTP id r10mr158916ybl.76.1269897281191; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:14:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.50.27 with SMTP id c27ls624474agk.5.p; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.1.40 with SMTP id 40mr6468864aga.9.1269897280184; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.1.40 with SMTP id 40mr6468860aga.9.1269897280051; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.121]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id 25si41130yxe.6.2010.03.29.14.14.38; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:14:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.121 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.121; Received: (qmail 95179 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Mar 2010 21:14:38 -0000 Message-ID: <585619.83565.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: ZPoTeGAVM1ngQp9vpeODf.ikFKJWOyPThPf7HfSpjjYWgIw JydzLQ..C11DQ8vsDrXrR29HoK80V4OkyMUO5pBzcGWqdwoXWiixtH28MWDt KvWdTX.tz37Xhmv41K6dCKze80xF_4KkKoSVEZ_eDjCmajDJOsVAeK0PXhE1 53gmS3BHek4NWXa3TXR447dY9hoxCITMZ1VrWm7sbXONHZ1ZWdfY4WUMPGVj v5p1eMMPWu7adiwmbajoPlcIowOIeLTD.rpI5VGJ4Ve_MvsQKIntI4PMZ3bf 3773VWTbTfaZBmSFiMVmdvBxa6rVxPsEkwfvr.Q5VFA9IT77ZfPdCn0RZhuW zib_ziEeSIStEx.x965Uyn9pk8dmvB4.Z3sK6 Received: from [71.14.73.129] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:14:38 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/324.3 YahooMailWebService/0.8.100.260964 References: <2320FCB7-86FE-4E30-9F24-DAD6E40024D7@evertype.com> <925d17561003280714y30d5eb1fo19b9f97eb6902eaa@mail.gmail.com> <5BD9338A-1033-49E9-9A75-49046469DE95@gmail.com> <201003290855.46019.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17561003290812m4ed36820rf39978da50f7cbd@mail.gmail.com> <664037.78661.qm@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17561003291250w793cd0f7ld8bc442ade3e51db@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:14:38 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] la .alis. To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <925d17561003291250w793cd0f7ld8bc442ade3e51db@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.121 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.com X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/62f96e395a91e500 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/7e5cd93e9b264d52 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If it is really true that the language has degenerated to the point that 'l= o' and 'le' are merged as one, the replacing one by the other is indeed poi= ntless. And, if it is true 'le nu' was regularly used improperly, the repl= acing it in most places by lo might be some improvement. Unfortunately, th= at move does mean that we would go from something we has some idea about ('= le nu') even if it did not strictly apply, to one we have no clear idea abo= ut at all ('lo nu' or 'lo' anything, for that matter). Btw, I hope the fir= st protasis is not true, that in the proliferation of picky details to fix = earlier goofs, we have lost one of the big distinctions that was one of the= things done right from almost the beginning. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, March 29, 2010 2:50:14 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] la .alis. On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:41 PM, John E Clifford wr= ote: > > On a non-trivial note, I see xorxes proposing to do away with all 'le' in= laAlis. 'le' was one of JCB's really clever inventions, a thing of wide g= enuine use. Even in its present rather attenuated form, it is still valuab= le. To replace it by 'lo', whatever that may be nowadays, would degade the = language severely (the o0pposite replacement might be an improvement howeve= r -- at least we would know what we had). It's hard to see how, if "le" and "lo" are merged as one, pronouncing the resulting form "le" could be an improvement while pronouncing it "lo" would be a degradation. The reason I prefer "lo nu" to the previously ubiquitous "le nu" is that in many/most cases of "le nu" there was no intent to refer to a specific event that the speaker had in mind, "lenu" was just the automatic option for subordinate bridi, without any consideration of specificity. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. =20 --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.