From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Dec 08 15:23:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Dec 2002 23:23:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 55769 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 23:23:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 23:23:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 23:23:25 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LAlh-0007gN-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:23:25 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LAld-0007fy-00; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:23:22 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:23:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LAlZ-0007fn-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:23:17 -0800 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.57] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A4763D00148; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 18:23:34 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: More stuff Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 18:23:12 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <20021208231452.GA26904@digitalkingdom.org> Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: raganok@intrex.net [209.42.200.57] X-Note: Total weight is 0. Whitelisted X-archive-position: 3320 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: raganok@intrex.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" Reply-To: raganok@intrex.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out >> At 11:40 PM 12/7/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: >> >You are likely right about the lack of redundancy, but (a) it is >> >unlikely to be a frequent problem, given that word recognition uses >> >pragmatic as well as phonetic clues, >> >> On the contrary, it has already been a problem. TLI Loglan had it >> with their numbers (which are ni ne to te fo fe so se vo ve), which >> Bob Chassell and others had problems with, so I made the Lojban set >> what it is now - yet people object to re/rei. >s/people/thinkit/ The only reason he's alone (or nearly so) is that nobody else ever *says* rei/xei, so we don't care. If I were using base-16 Lojban cmavo (For comp-sci applications, perhaps?) I would definitely prefer xei.