From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Dec 06 08:54:36 2002
Return-Path: <lojban-out@lojban.org>
X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 16:54:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 73440 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 16:54:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
  by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 16:54:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175)
  by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 16:54:36 -0000
Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05)
  id 18KLkK-00077H-00
  for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:54:36 -0800
Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 18KLjj-00076v-00; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:53:59 -0800
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:53:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
  by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
  id 18KLjd-00076l-00
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:53:53 -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 gB6H03G9088582
  for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:00:03 -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 gB6H03VS088581
  for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:00:03 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:00:03 -0600
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Aesthetics
Message-ID: <20021206170003.GA88066@allusion.net>
References: <7240E02B-08DE-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7240E02B-08DE-11D7-9FC7-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
X-archive-position: 3137
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 <fracture@allusion.net>
From: Jordan DeLong <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790
X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out

--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 04:49:12PM +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> Speaking completely irresponsibly for a change:

.u'i

> And's argument that not conforming to Latin alphabet conventions when=20
> writing in the latin alphabet is not utterly bogus.
>=20
> But reading Lojban is hard enough work already without introducing=20
> *some* signposts.=20
> .imU'ileda'inunago'ikeinodafAntelenurojbOprecucIskataitu'adei

No one is actually suggesting *every* space should be left out.

.ipe'iledomUplicumIlxelekace'udUkse.inojbOprecuca'acIskatai

> I have favoured using braces to help out in complex structures. Yes, we=20
> already have phonetic punctuation. But like I say, it's hard enough=20
> already. This got vetoed when I did it in the introductory prose to the=20
> two books, though. Which I accept, since they are exemplars of Standard=20
> Lojban, and the optional punctuations have never been considered=20
> Standard.

Personally, I think such markup is somewhat un-Lojbanic, however,
I have no real objections as long as the original words are left
in place. (i.e. 'xu?' and not just '?', '=ABlu' and not just '=AB').

> (Dunno if I liked the =3D marker for sentence beginnings either. We have=
=20
> more choices now, with Unicode...)
>=20
> When I write lojban, I use lots of linebreaks and lots of indentation.=20
> For the same reason.
>=20
> And I regard the refusal to include graphic representations of=20
> punctuation (the dotless style) as callousness to me the reader. Yes, I=20
> can work out Lojban written without dots. But why is your lojban so=20
> cool as to merit the extra headache?

IMHO leaving out dots is much more un-Lojbanic than putting in a
few european-style punctionation marks. Though I dislike both
practices.

> The real solution is a web engine converting between styles, of course.

--=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

--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE98NeTDrrilS51AZ8RAr85AJ4lnBC0By8pPaV4CY0yPIKdJrFtzQCgj3li
+3Wt91eQsKKlMGQ/5PDLKWQ=
=H4qZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24--

