Subject: Re: broken phone

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 15:44:38 -0000

--- In lojban@y..., Rob Speer <rob@t...> wrote:
> 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

that makes sense. also don't forget "zei", which helps especially 
beginners who haven't gotten down all the rafsi yet. it allows you 
essentially to not use rafsi all together (may be especially 
important considering we don't know if the word morphology is 
correct).