From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Sep 11 15:40:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 11 Sep 2002 22:40:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 62711 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 22:40:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2002 22:40:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 22:40:25 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17pG9p-0006AF-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:40:25 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17pG9K-00069Y-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:39:55 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17pG9E-00069P-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:39:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:39:48 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) Message-ID: <20020911223948.GB23105@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20020911174019.GK6798@chain.digitalkingdom.org> 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: 1160 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 Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:32:44PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > The whole point of lujvo is that they are words formed from parts that > have independent meaning within Lojban, but with a meaning that is not > equivalent to the sum of their parts. > > We need lujvo & fuhivla because for new meanings we need new words. Hmmm. OK, I concede the point. We'll see how that affects my POV on the rest of the discussion. -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/