From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Oct 15 12:37:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_1); 15 Oct 2002 19:37:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 65438 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 19:37:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Oct 2002 19:37:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-15.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.115) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 19:37:16 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-80.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.80]) by mailbox-15.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A5E28B08 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:37:10 +0200 (DST) To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: jvoste Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 20:38:55 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin [2nd attempt to send -- sorry if first arrives tomorrow] Are the lujvo in NORALUJV.txt drawn from usage, or were they thought up by the compiler of the list? Are the lujvo in NORALUJV.tx well-formed by the standard criteria of appositeness and seljvajvohood? What processes are in place for sifting usage for new lujvo? Should we each be making the effort to document our lujvo usage? Is anyone studying rafsi preferences? The lujvo in the jvoste are listed in their shortest possible form, but I dimly recall Nick (or someone) researching the issue several years ago and finding that CXXCy rafsi were preferred to CVCy and CV'V(r). --And.