From rob@twcny.rr.com Sun Oct 07 22:51:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 8 Oct 2001 05:48:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 15920 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2001 05:48:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 8 Oct 2001 05:48:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.125) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Oct 2001 05:50:59 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f985o0H25702 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 01:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 01:50:00 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15qTIx-0000ZJ-00 for ; Mon, 08 Oct 2001 01:50:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 01:50:19 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] broken phone Message-ID: <20011008015019.B1787@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <20011006150601.A540@twcny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 11:51:58PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Rob Speer wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 04:14:18PM +0200, G. Dyke wrote: > > > Coi rodo > > > > > > For those of you who participated (and those who didn't) here is the broken > > > phone chain (At last ! Sorry but I was away all week and didn't expect it to > > > be all over 24 hours after And received Pierre's translation). I did my > > > translation trying to keep the word-order as close to the original as > > > possible. I also created lujvo to replace single words and tanru for the > > > others. (You may notice that I follow the model set by Don in '96 for the > > > compiling of all this). I apologize for the length of this mail. > > > > I think trying to preserve word order and the number of words actually caused > > some of the confusion. > > I surely hope nobody tried to maintain such a language-specific and > meaningless aspect like word number. Well, I wouldn't have put it quite so harshly, but Greg does say he created lujvo to replace single words. And yes, I agree that's a bad idea. In general, my opinion on lujvo is that you should use them when usage has established the word, when you need a specific place structure, or when the components act in a defined way that you couldn't get with tanru (like {cargau}). All other times, use tanru. -- la rab.spir noi gumrysarji