From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Dec 02 18:05:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 3 Dec 2002 02:05:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 30458 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 02:05:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2002 02:05:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 02:05:46 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18J2RW-00049Q-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:05:46 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J2RT-000495-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:05:43 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18J2RP-00048s-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:05:39 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:05:39 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Message-ID: <20021203020539.GM1558@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20021202162407.GA37047@allusion.net> <20021203020631.GB43563@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021203020631.GB43563@allusion.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2932 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 08:06:31PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 07:02:33PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > How does the new-assignments-without-revoking-old work? > > We assign lau'oi to selma'o LAU, with the exact meaning of lau. > We assign tei'oi to selma'o TEI, with the exact meaning of tei. > > A statement is made that "lau'oi" and "tei'oi" should be used in stead > of "lau" and "tei", because lau and tei may be reclaimed in the > distant future for their monosyllabicness. > > However, since no one but me supports this more moderate approach to > this, I think it's pretty cool, actually. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u jmaji le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi