From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 01 18:26:55 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 2 Dec 2002 02:26:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 39455 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 02:26:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2002 02:26:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 02:26:54 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18IgIQ-0000xq-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:26:54 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IgII-0000xZ-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:26:46 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:26:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18IgIA-0000xN-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 18:26:38 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gB22WQG9031662 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:32:26 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gB22WPoW031661 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:32:25 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:32:25 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan Message-ID: <20021202023225.GA31478@allusion.net> References: <20021201190611.V52499-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 2855 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 06:48:52PM -0600, Steven Belknap wrote: > On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 06:19 PM, Invent Yourself wrote: [...] > loglan vocabulary - these are not mutually incompatible. I have not=20 > suggested changing lojban, other than to express mild support for the=20 > toggling cmavo. The toggling cmavo might help Loglanders to transition=20 > to lojban. Perhaps there are other mechanisms which would be more=20 [...] Why is a specific toggle cmavo for loglan (which has difficulties in terms of parsing mentioned) any better than fu'ivla? {me zoi loglan. fooo foo foo .loglan. brodo brodo}, etc, works fine. It's what we use for accessing words from other languages. Why should loglan be any different? --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE96sY5DrrilS51AZ8RAh/wAJ92Z0tFMfe2JDSVVfWbNsxspX8n5gCgnPHd Tp9DezCiM8mpeFwtIObrkjI= =xA3S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu--