From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 13 09:59:34 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 13 Sep 2002 16:59:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 57472 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 16:59:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2002 16:59:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 16:59:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.163.13cbe96c (4320) for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:59:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <163.13cbe96c.2ab3736a@aol.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:59:22 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: word for "www" (was: Archive location.) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_163.13cbe96c.2ab3736a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_163.13cbe96c.2ab3736a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2002 7:13:59 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > pc: > > dikyjvo (itself a non-literal lujvo, note) > > "dikyjvo" and "le'avla" are good examples of morphologically well-formed > lujvo that despite the faults of their semantic composition have entered > the language through force of usage. (I myself use the more modern > standard "jvajvo" & "fu'ivla", mind.) Just twitting Nick and others who had praised the dikyjvo parts of CLL. {jvajvo} is more nearly regular, but {fu'ivla} in a contextless situation would come out as Lojban for "ditto". Usage, as you say, overcomes these "flaws." --part1_163.13cbe96c.2ab3736a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2002 7:13:59 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<
pc:
> dikyjvo (itself a non-literal lujvo, note)

"dikyjvo" and "le'avla" are good examples of morphologically well-formed
lujvo that despite the faults of their semantic composition have entered
the language through force of usage. (I myself use the more modern
standard "jvajvo" & "fu'ivla", mind.)

Just twitting Nick and others who had praised the dikyjvo parts of CLL.
{jvajvo} is more nearly regular, but {fu'ivla} in a contextless situation would come out as Lojban for "ditto".  Usage, as you say, overcomes these "flaws."
 --part1_163.13cbe96c.2ab3736a_boundary--