From lojban+bncCK7Yk5CUCxD_uJPnBBoEy2npqg@googlegroups.com Wed Nov 17 23:58:06 2010 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PIzNb-00007k-BN; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:58:06 -0800 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5sf4258648qwh.16 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:57:57 -0800 (PST) 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:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=IwQM8XvS3u6N+LLeI6gGfsazMFAcFIUTigJvrP9nfhc=; b=LQ9ijnavx3bn1vMkN1d99MLJIv/Dca6c0Rums96yXUGxfKi57Xolku+Bw8GJsMYw/0 66o2/QMdCxcgNgfFiFc6BDhjjkPJJXJU+xiGFHGwew88cdFazRGz+CTtSFbDq6yjEfAx 9CrpFn9WakJ5LT9w/Tf7MfkR5LZY7YUDX4VmY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=i4bs6NnIzlT5p76ccYaYttSUOgY0C+a/frS5MhvDgpqUav9vkHmmWfhccKchAPGueo WTbgUzJojZ+X2VXsuEQTfikJD5X45jG4IRbYiAMJyXyq5jyrJDprr5qjZ8KKomJXGhAA /ow7vYobKE8L/jDmmJYktaEIEiIFacBOa1nkU= Received: by 10.224.37.19 with SMTP id v19mr4264qad.17.1290067071562; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:57:51 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.126.81 with SMTP id b17ls261405qas.4.p; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:57:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.202.196 with SMTP id ff4mr24941qab.3.1290067071259; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:57:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.202.196 with SMTP id ff4mr24940qab.3.1290067071248; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:57:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qw0-f42.google.com (mail-qw0-f42.google.com [209.85.216.42]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y15si22096qce.3.2010.11.17.23.57.50; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:57:50 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.42; Received: by qwi4 with SMTP id 4so264129qwi.29 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:57:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.95.146 with SMTP id d18mr281454qcn.119.1290067069952; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:57:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.226.15 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:57:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <9f838b31-e959-41d3-aa04-c1599ea84916@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> References: <90e6ba53aa46e9d9b9049542c2a8@google.com> <9f838b31-e959-41d3-aa04-c1599ea84916@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:57:49 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Fwd: Re: Re: New language: lojban From: Remo Dentato To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rdentato@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rdentato@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rdentato@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Zifre wrote: > coi ro do > > - Periods. I have not used them except for {.I}, only because I think > it looks nicer, and the rules are really not that hard to follow. If > everyone else thinks we should use them for things like {.oi} and {la > djan.}, then I'll change my sentences. I would prefer to have them around names. I follow the "double dot" convention: {la .djan.} but also {la djan.} should be ok. I wouldn't drop the last one as a pause is mandatory after a cmevla. > - {ti noi broda} vs. {lo vi broda} (and same with ta/va and tu/vu). I agree that we shouldn't have two translations (one with {ti} and the other with {vi}) but I would not prefer one over the other. I would rather let the transator decide. > - {lo} vs. {le}. Yes, I know, xorlo. However, remod uses {le} a lot > more than I do. Yep, I know I tend to use it {le} whenever I talk specifically of something and {lo} when I'm not. I guess I should be more careful in my judgement.... Another point is {lonu} versus {lo nu} (and cmavo clusters in general}. I've no strong opinion on that. Remo -- 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.