From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Aug 29 13:47:09 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 20:47:09 -0000
Received: (qmail 29028 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 20:34:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 20:34:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 20:34:13 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.90.250]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20010829203411.CAGO23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:34:11 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:33:25 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCEDOEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <30.19f71afa.28be61c5@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

pc:
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: 
<I think I'd go for the experimental cmavo for abstracting selbri, 
plus a hardcore glorkbog ka to which a Government Health Warning is 
attached. There doesn't seem much point in formalizing conventions 
for ka; they'd be leaky and not very robust or effectual in making 
current usage that much less vague.> 

Well, I still think that the rest of my summary deserves a try. And then yes 
we can go back to where we want to be. 

I suggest that you send to the list a new summary containing nothing
but the rules you think should be given a try. And give your proposal
a name.

--And.