From BestATN@aol.com Wed Feb 20 15:56:56 2002
Return-Path: <BestATN@aol.com>
X-Sender: BestATN@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 20 Feb 2002 23:56:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 58918 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 23:56:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172)
  by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Feb 2002 23:56:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m02.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.5)
  by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 23:56:55 -0000
Received: from BestATN@aol.com
  by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.3a.224de5e6 (3949)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:56:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3a.224de5e6.29a591ba@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:56:42 EST
Subject: glosses
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3a.224de5e6.29a591ba_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10556
From: BestATN@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1155066
X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbaner

--part1_3a.224de5e6.29a591ba_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

greg,
i find the use of 'gray' instead of 'grey' and 'color' instead of 'colour' to 
be quite normal, and in fact, i hadn't noticed it. as a frequent user lately 
of logflash, i am extremely glad that no such british spellings are part of 
the glosses. it would be a constant irritation, and i presume that's how you 
feel about the current state. 
on the other hand, i agree with you about the gloss for ".i". in fact, any 
gloss of uniquely lojban terms, such as "cmavo", "rafsi", "tanru", etc., is 
mighty annoying to me, because the lojban words are the terms i use in 
english, not 'structure word', 'affix', 'phrase compound' and the like.
steven lytle

--part1_3a.224de5e6.29a591ba_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SCRIPT" FACE="Comic Sans MS" LANG="0">greg,
<BR>i find the use of 'gray' instead of 'grey' and 'color' instead of 'colour' to be quite normal, and in fact, i hadn't noticed it. &nbsp;as a frequent user lately of logflash, i am extremely glad that no such british spellings are part of the glosses. &nbsp;it would be a constant irritation, and i presume that's how you feel about the current state. &nbsp;
<BR>on the other hand, i agree with you about the gloss for ".i". &nbsp;in fact, any gloss of uniquely lojban terms, such as "cmavo", "rafsi", "tanru", etc., is mighty annoying to me, because the lojban words are the terms i use in english, not 'structure word', 'affix', 'phrase compound' and the like.
<BR>steven lytle</FONT></HTML>

--part1_3a.224de5e6.29a591ba_boundary--

