[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm

To: lojban@yahoogroups.com (Lojban List)
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm
From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:29:23 -0500 (EST)
In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20030124202537.03d9ab60@pop.east.cox.net> from "Robert LeChevalier" at Jan 24, 2003 08:31:28 PM

Robert LeChevalier scripsit:

> (In addition "ala'um" is not an "option"; there should be no options in an 
> official algorithm.  It is either valid or invalid according to the rules.)

IIRC the validity of this word was discussed on jboske some time ago.

-- 
If you have ever wondered if you are in hell,         John Cowan
it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
road of spiritual inquiry.  If you are absolutely   http://www.reutershealth.com
sure you are in hell, however, then you must be         jcowan@reutershealth.com
on the Cross Bronx Expressway.          --Alan Feur, NYTimes, 2002-09-20

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm
  - From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>

References:
- Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm
  - From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>

Prev by Date: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm
Next by Date: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm
Previous by thread: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm
Next by thread: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread