From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Sep 10 14:55:51 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 21:55:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 83641 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 21:55:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 21:55:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 21:55:51 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17osz9-0007OU-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:55:51 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17osyc-0007OC-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:55:18 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17osyW-0007O3-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:55:12 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:55:12 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) Message-ID: <20020910215512.GW6798@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1055 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 05:27:36PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/10/2002 3:15:35 PM Central Daylight Time, > lojban-out@lojban.org writes: > << > I would like examples of these 'metaphorical lujvo of yore' that > actually got used in conversation, or in *original* lojbanic works. > > If said lujvo wasn't used in either of those cases, I really don't > care about it in the slightest, to be honest. > >> > > Ah, the definitional sulk. Yep. > Any other requirements you want to lay down before I go looking for an > example. I'd hate to find one and then have it disqualified after the > fact. Not that I can think of. > << > > A good lujvo is generally -- and loosely speaking -- one that is > > seen as apt when it is understood, which need not be when it is > > first heard or even when it is first analysed in the absence of > > understanding. > > In your opinion. I stridently disagree. > >> > > I know you do, but I can't see why. The ambiguity of tanru yet again. Tanru are not lujvo. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/