From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 15 15:03:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 15 Sep 2001 22:03:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 27815 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 21:55:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 15 Sep 2001 21:55:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 21:55:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.f5.f495e53 (26118) for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:55:28 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f5.f495e53.28d52850_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_f5.f495e53.28d52850_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2001 4:04:17 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > Don't be foolish. I was un-Lojbanizing the name, suggesting that there just > might be someone whose name is similar to the name of a year. The full cmene > was {pavosorenanc}, which I split up into two words (much like I called > myself > {la rabspir.} before I knew that {bs} wasn't allowed). > I wish you'd mentioned that you were unlojbanizing, since the rest was lojbanized, I asssume dthat this was meant to be too. Someone with a name like that would, of course, in Lojban, have a quite distinctive name, which was my point -- also rather obliquely. That is, {paVOson REnanc} is not likely to be confused with {pavosoREnanc} -- or it should not be. The use with {ca} or {ca'o} or whatever time operator you use would also count against this (though it could mean "during the lifetime of" apparently). I still don't see the point, unless it is just that using year names is yucky, which I agree with (for all they are convenient). --part1_f5.f495e53.28d52850_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2001 4:04:17 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:


Don't be foolish. I was un-Lojbanizing the name, suggesting that there just
might be someone whose name is similar to the name of a year. The full cmene
was {pavosorenanc}, which I split up into two words (much like I called myself
{la rabspir.} before I knew that {bs} wasn't allowed).


I wish you'd mentioned that you were unlojbanizing, since the rest was lojbanized, I asssume dthat this was meant to be too.  Someone with a name like that would, of course, in Lojban, have a quite distinctive name, which was my point -- also rather obliquely.  That is, {paVOson REnanc} is not likely to be confused with {pavosoREnanc} -- or it should not be.  The use with {ca} or {ca'o} or whatever time operator you use would also count against this (though it could mean "during the lifetime of" apparently).  I still don't see the point, unless it is just that using year names is yucky, which I agree with (for all they are convenient). --part1_f5.f495e53.28d52850_boundary--