[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
xorlo podcast
- To: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Subject: xorlo podcast
- From: Matt Arnold <matt.mattarn@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:32:04 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=bGIsF5YJ4NZOzL9CyntMEkn/q6mvV4CeG5+M9sOTcp6tn1ZoVa8O+9ES0eVAv6UIJK+E6KAk9zcxE2FYgSJV/PyG4GstXZaFrTk17cdsVKuCWz267GhmkDp5lNHBLiecGD16wDYI1xv6wHgr3yJp3WqihFLxzrsJMtGpQOSaHJY=
- Reply-to: Matt Arnold <matt.mattarn@gmail.com>
- Sender: nobody <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>
I would like to run an audio article on the Lojban podcast about
xorlo's use of {lo} and {le}, contrasting them with the old meanings,
offering a rundown of the reasons, and confirming the current status of
xorlo's voted-upon legitimacy or lack thereof. The contrary accounts of
this key language feature is one of the most confusing discrepancies
likely to plague
newcomers, and it would be good to have an expert clear it up once and
for all. I would write it, but I myself am vague on the subject. Any
takers?
-epkat