From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Sep 25 08:05:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 25 Sep 2001 15:05:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 79262 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2001 15:02:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 25 Sep 2001 15:02:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2001 15:03:14 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:40:45 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:11:42 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:11:22 +0100 To: lojbab , lojban Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: ro prenu na ku daplu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta >>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" 09/24/01 01:37am=20 #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=20 #have enough allowance for Zipfean shortening. The fact that I dislike the rafsi system, which happens to be Lojban's sole zipfean mechanism, is not incompatible with my thinking there should be other better zipfean mechanisms. At this stage I think that type 4 fuhivla and string-abbreviating experimen= tal=20 cmavo are our best hope, but if I could rewrite history I would have made=20 all gismu CCV and used any C as lujvo glue (CCV-C-CCV). --And.