From cowan@ccil.org Mon Sep 17 00:40:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 17 Sep 2001 07:40:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 90164 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2001 01:00:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Sep 2001 01:00:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Sep 2001 01:00:46 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15immM-0003HB-00; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 21:00:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] META : Who is everyone (and what are they saying) In-Reply-To: <001301c13ea6$1fd48840$e729ca3e@oemcomputer> from "G. Dyke" at "Sep 16, 2001 01:52:13 pm" To: "G. Dyke" Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 21:00:54 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan G. Dyke scripsit: > For > instance, are these words specific to americans and those who've known them > a long time or have they come about through lojban : "fiat" (as in "fiat > decides..."), No, that's been in the language (in the sense of an authoritative even if arbitrary decision) since 1631. > "glorking", "glorkjunkied" (aha! the latter two are related), That comes from a sentence devised by David Moser (aka Mo Dawei) in 1980: "This gubblick [sentence] contains many nonsklarkish English [nonstandard] flutzpahs [words], but the overall pluggandisp [meaning] can be glorked [comprehended] from context". > Why do some people support and reject {gumri} ? It's not a standard part of the language any more (since 1989 or so) but some people feel nostalgic about it. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan