From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Sep 23 17:40:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 24 Sep 2001 00:40:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 66874 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2001 00:40:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Sep 2001 00:40:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Sep 2001 00:40:47 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic222.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.222]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8O0eka02605 for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 20:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010923203613.00a9cf00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 20:37:45 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: ro prenu na ku daplu In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 12:34 AM 9/24/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >Nick: > > One thing: you're insisting on {zei} because you want to sidestep the > > potential ambiguity of tanru, or because you don't want to look up the Evil > > that is rafsi? > >I don't want to use tanru. I don't want to look up short rafsi. And I >avoid 5-letter rafsi so as to make it easier for others to look up the >constituent parts. I also approve of lujvo glue as a matter of principle. This sounds a bit strange, coming from someone who is arguing that we don't have enough allowance for Zipfean shortening. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org