Subject: Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.)

From: Nick Nicholas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:27:01 +1000

cu'u la djorden.

>That said, CLL seemed to me when I read it to be very much in favor
>of lujvo which are literally-devised in a predictable fashion (but
>allowing for removing pieces of the source tanru to shorten them).

CLL has a whopping disclaimer at the front of it, saying that those 
are my ideas, not LLG policy; and lojbab wasn't exactly passionately 
agreeing with them. I think the idea is correct, else I wouldn't have 
advocated it; I've said enough on the wiki and elsewhere about this, 
but I certainly haven't changed my mind. If other Lojbanists choose 
to agree with dikyjvo, bully for them; and the marketplace of ideas 
is where it will get duked out.

>Pre-CLL lojban had plenty of problems (literal lujvo aside), so I
>don't think the implied argument of "it's always been this way, so
>it's the right way" makes any sense whatsoever (especially if you're
>reaching back to the Dark Ages (loglan days) of the language).

.i mi tugni pi ro la'edi'u

-- 
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
* Dr Nick Nicholas, Linguistics/French & Italian [email-masked] *
University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net
* "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the *
circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson,
* _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. *
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****