On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Michael Everson
> On 29 Mar 2010, at 21:08, Michael Turniansky wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Michael Everson
>>
>
> Defined by whom? For what purpose? What actual *utility* is there is not being able to identify structures at a glance? What *benefit* is there to "la alis" over "la Alis"? Since the spec outlines the potential use of quotation marks and exclamation and question marks (which it DOES) why does an exploration of the application of traditional Latin typography attract so much grumbling? Did you know that Loglan cases, by the way?
>
I am, indeed. I learned Loglan back in 1975. Nor would I mind
cases in lojban, except for the fact that it explicitly defines
exactly what capitals are to be used fro when using the Latin alphabet
system, and what they mean. Had it not specified it (like it doesn't
do with parentheses, quotation marks, digits, etc.) I might be more
flexible on that point.
--gejyspa
Funnily enough, the grumbling has been more against the use of capitalization then about any other issue, to my recollection. While some portion of us would be mildly peeved about using punctuation, such as myself, I don't think anyone is nearly so vehement about that as to the issue with capitalization- probably because of what capitalization means in Lojban.
For myself, if you were to publish the book with all the {denpa bu} in their spots, and all in lower-case, I wouldn't mind the mildly annoying punctuation enough to cause me to not purchase it. The capitalization would. The lack of {denpa bu} almost would, but I do have a pen, dots are easy to draw in. ;)