[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: la'e di'u (was: experimental cmavo in lojgloss.)
- To: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban] Re: la'e di'u (was: experimental cmavo in lojgloss.)
- From: "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:54:02 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=8zVBHL1ZZKstvU2v5OjJ1KmU+f1FFwsJzVHnYNnc+3A=; b=OErJhtpKXCE/2SRgbNrC60TEDoDzOJA08DaJrDqZUQkQ78S2IPdvuNNIUKeExcoR93 IeTMqqPRXIPz1asDnm/VHQvuyDbDD8EmeC7IMo851A38XGIquFOfn4nXu/Yj9Ti4vqnm XjoQL0qS8LpYShyQk6EjkZiyThvVNEQepKaWA=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=I1XDlOIsXwGSixY4jMwPxfeRRxX3Lve9kBhhXUSYRBcbCHxi6TpRu+QEZKz6OGPnEV O9cT9CjgrtHlsRp3olejShYtW7nbVTPejKKGx3LeCJhA5yhHUIpLlWgJCnEpVXpY/LkA lc3lQeGvlB7Xx2Dj52vYzoCsZ1OOzdbhZvAYQ=
- In-reply-to: <737b61f30811070541l45110d3dsc5144714e926e32d@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <737b61f30811070541l45110d3dsc5144714e926e32d@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You have to admit, it's a lot cleaner conceptually. What would be the
> alternative? Keep di'u, and la'e, and add another cmavo (or several)
> for la'e di'u simply because of the frequency of usage?
That would be one possibility. "tei" and "tau" are what I would have
liked for "la'e di'u" and "la'e de'u", or something like that. But I
wouldn't mind not having "di'u" (and all its cousins) there in the
first place. "lu'e tei", "lu'e tau" would have been the compounds to
be used in the more rare cases when we do want to refer to the
expressions themselves.
>Given that the
> ambiguity of la'e could stand to be fixed, would we rather add
> variations on la'e, or single-cmavo variations on la'e di'u?
What ambiguity do you have in mind?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.