From lojban+bncCMvjp-TQBRDNoYjgBBoE-PuAEg@googlegroups.com Sun May 30 00:16:48 2010 Received: from mail-px0-f189.google.com ([209.85.212.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OIclF-00053w-6K; Sun, 30 May 2010 00:16:47 -0700 Received: by pxi12 with SMTP id 12sf782065pxi.16 for ; Sun, 30 May 2010 00:16:35 -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:received:mime-version:sender :received:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=f8Ylr6ZACtE4UP7sJ9PSSkE8ar+K7Q+WitujtxBaCDU=; b=12T1Jek7MCrO0mc2n7/kOcr54Di4DdKv2TX3ZXU/pb9hRIPdU3uHztVHGM7WrfhS2E q+LDsuD69Ti4uz6BlQ/kKIB1GEHsQWbD/DY7K0B1/DiEO9z5kH5Fmj5Z9osyV37tdxZ+ XRntj7kwpZua1RBGxLEFc9dJykPhZNqTCK1Zs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; b=HBEc9SC+tWsUBeZdAt6f6+PcXwikE+NpHqeOWt8VEU0nMqUtVfQS9SOfyxSOWLUPe9 iO9AHpW0K0pN4H/9WVYzvIrj/NpeN0F3wLuB4KScnDCWoxEwpT00vCSd2l6wl+xJsXCQ hemL9JpHmkJfL70yx3ta7eq0/VkWV/g5Fktbw= Received: by 10.114.70.14 with SMTP id s14mr277674waa.22.1275203789391; Sun, 30 May 2010 00:16:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.115.133.33 with SMTP id k33ls3484828wan.2.p; Sun, 30 May 2010 00:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.101.16 with SMTP id y16mr1033783wab.36.1275203787846; Sun, 30 May 2010 00:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.101.16 with SMTP id y16mr1033782wab.36.1275203787814; Sun, 30 May 2010 00:16:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f46.google.com (mail-gw0-f46.google.com [74.125.83.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id r3si6255778waj.3.2010.05.30.00.16.26; Sun, 30 May 2010 00:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.46; Received: by gwaa12 with SMTP id a12so2078579gwa.33 for ; Sun, 30 May 2010 00:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.5.21 with SMTP id h21mr3135184ani.40.1275203786088; Sun, 30 May 2010 00:16:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.249.14 with HTTP; Sun, 30 May 2010 00:16:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <676f1fae-2f5a-4609-8727-49c9083a8715@h20g2000prn.googlegroups.com> References: <3414c7b0-2a75-4cb2-99a4-0afa6458f6ba@t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <7ac5ef76-747a-4077-ac8d-bd45e0c68005@y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com> <556832.6378.qm@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <959500ee-ea4d-4acf-9353-f2c990ba25a7@t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <676f1fae-2f5a-4609-8727-49c9083a8715@h20g2000prn.googlegroups.com> From: Daniel Brockman Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 09:16:06 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Named multiples To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dbrockman@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dbrockman@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: dbrockman@gmail.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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > It pleases me when people find their Lindar-filters. > ((I lol'd @ talking to me like I'm a simpleton. <3 )) That wasn't meant as a comment about you so much as a comment about the simplicity of the basic proposal, though. > We can't come up with a different name? I'm pretty sure that, aside > from brodV, we're not supposed to have gismu that are the same > excepting the final vowel. These are just names. They're not gismu in the sense of "root words", they're gismu only in the purely morphological sense. > I have a very valid question for all involved: > > Will we be documenting definitions for cmevla now that they are valid > brivla, or should it be left up to context? You're being a little too forward with this ("now that they are valid brivla"). What we should do is just to continue experimenting and discussing. -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.