From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Sep 22 03:37:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 22 Sep 2002 10:37:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 52336 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2002 10:37:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Sep 2002 10:37:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-12.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.112) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2002 10:37:18 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-89.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.89]) by mailbox-12.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5FD825C16B for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:37:16 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] corrigible vlaste? RE: Re: I like chocolate Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 11:38:58 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5a.11ee8a9b.2abe0135@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: > a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: > << > > The experimental gismu are silly, but the experimental cmavo aren't. > All the experimental cmavo suggested by me are serious. Most are > brainstormed ideas that deserve to be rejected, but some make a great > improvement to Lojban. > > >> > Well, your entitled to think so (and presumably do if you've gone to > the trouble to present them), but I haven't seen a cse that > convincesme nor one that clearly can't be handled in Lojban as is > (though just how may be less clear). Some of my proposals, such as {sa'ei} are merely useful (in the swiss army knife sense) rather than indispensable. Those that are very useful and lack any clear intrabaseline alternative are mu'ei, ba'oi, ca'ai, ka'ei, nu'oi. > I don't suppose you invent a > new word every time your ingenuity fails you in finding the right way > to say something (at least partly because you don't engage in that > search often -- if at all), but others do and I dislike encoruaging it. In such cases we can just point out the standard solution. --And.