From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Thu Dec 05 18:56:15 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 02:56:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 56946 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 02:56:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 02:56:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 02:56:14 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-59-212.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.59.212]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAFB3D09C for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 03:56:12 +0100 (MET) To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Loglan Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 02:58:23 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Bob McIvor: > On Mercredi, déce 4, 2002, at 19:52 US/Eastern, And Rosta wrote: > > > Bob McIvor: > >> Most newcomers to TLI have looked at both languages before deciding > >> to go with TLI > > > > I'm curious as to what their reasons were. Do you know? > > One commonly expressed reason is the appearance of the written > language. Another is the proliferation of cmavo > whose semantics and usage, are constantly debated Is this because fewer people are around to debate Loglan cmavo, or because debate happens behind closed doors, or because the semantics and usage of Loglan cmavo is more settled? If Loglan is more settled, how was that achieved? And do you think that BF should consult Loglan solutions for insights? --And.