From pycyn@aol.com Thu Nov 07 18:19:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Nov 2002 02:19:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 66137 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 02:19:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Nov 2002 02:19:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 02:19:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.146.23a2f02 (26116) for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:19:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <146.23a2f02.2afc7923@aol.com> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:19:15 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: importing ro To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_146.23a2f02.2afc7923_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_146.23a2f02.2afc7923_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/7/2002 5:27:13 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > Do ma'u and ni'u here have the status of mere diacritics, > serving to distinguish the two kinds of ro? > > I think it's better to go with ro &ro'o'o, to spare everyone > who wants to be precise the effort of having to add the ni'u > or the ma'u. >> Yes, they are diacritics, though not "mere", since they mark (occasionally) significant differences. The nice things about them are 1) they work for all quantifiers, 2) they are iconic and 3) they are short. We also don't have to argue about which is which. I still think they are unnecessary, since all anyone seems to want is available already. --part1_146.23a2f02.2afc7923_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/7/2002 5:27:13 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
<<
Do ma'u and ni'u here have the status of mere diacritics,
serving to distinguish the two kinds of ro?

I think it's better to go with ro &ro'o'o, to spare everyone
who wants to be precise the effort of having to add the ni'u
or the ma'u.

>>
Yes, they are diacritics, though not "mere", since they mark (occasionally) significant differences.  The nice things about them are 1) they work for all quantifiers, 2) they are iconic and 3) they are short.  We also don't have to argue about which is which.
I still think they are unnecessary, since all anyone seems to want is available already.
 --part1_146.23a2f02.2afc7923_boundary--