On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 04:49:12PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> Speaking completely irresponsibly for a change:
.u'i
> And's argument that not conforming to Latin alphabet conventions when
> writing in the latin alphabet is not utterly bogus.
>
> But reading Lojban is hard enough work already without introducing
> *some* signposts.
> .imU'ileda'inunago'ikeinodafAntelenurojbOprecucIskataitu'adei
No one is actually suggesting *every* space should be left out.
.ipe'iledomUplicumIlxelekace'udUkse.inojbOprecuca'acIskatai
> I have favoured using braces to help out in complex structures. Yes, we
> already have phonetic punctuation. But like I say, it's hard enough
> already. This got vetoed when I did it in the introductory prose to the
> two books, though. Which I accept, since they are exemplars of Standard
> Lojban, and the optional punctuations have never been considered
> Standard.
Personally, I think such markup is somewhat un-Lojbanic, however,
I have no real objections as long as the original words are left
in place. (i.e. 'xu?' and not just '?', '«lu' and not just '«').
> (Dunno if I liked the = marker for sentence beginnings either. We have
> more choices now, with Unicode...)
>
> When I write lojban, I use lots of linebreaks and lots of indentation.
> For the same reason.
>
> And I regard the refusal to include graphic representations of
> punctuation (the dotless style) as callousness to me the reader. Yes, I
> can work out Lojban written without dots. But why is your lojban so
> cool as to merit the extra headache?
IMHO leaving out dots is much more un-Lojbanic than putting in a
few european-style punctionation marks. Though I dislike both
practices.
> The real solution is a web engine converting between styles, of course.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgpbPSv6probR.pgp
Description: PGP signature