Re: [lojban] la .alis.

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with the stability bit, but I don't agree that Lojban as written in
> the standard convention is impenetrable.
>
> A bit difficult at first, and more so with Jorge's consistent lack of
> denpabu, but not impenetrable.

I have changed my ways a bit since then. Now I usually do write the
period when it represents a glottal stop in front of a vowel. The
reason for my change of approach was that working on the morphology
convinced me that it is more elegant to take the period there as
representing a full consonant, as opposed to the more wishy-washy
consonanthood it has as the cmevla delimiter.

> (I would like to state that in my own
> experience, the difficulties I had when first reading Lojban have since been
> reversed- that is, what once difficult to read due to lack of that which I
> am used to seeing in English text is now difficult if those elements *are*
> there- with the exception of white space, and not counting my difficulty in
> reading {lonu lojbo bacru cu na ponse lo denpabu} ("Lojban without the
> {.}").)

Do you really mean to use "denpabu" as a fu'ivla?

"denpa bu" (or "dénpabu" if you prefer) is a lerfu, and in that case
you would not use a "lo" with it. But maybe "denpabu" is not such a
bad idea for a fu'ivla.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.