From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Dec 09 07:04:35 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 9 Dec 2002 15:04:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 92204 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2002 15:04:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2002 15:04:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2002 15:04:35 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LPSV-0006nb-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:04:35 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LPSK-0006l1-00; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:04:24 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.112]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LPRu-0006fK-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:03:58 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-66-8.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.66.8]) by lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD205B70C for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:03:26 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] rei (was: RE: Re: More stuff Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:03:15 -0000 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) In-Reply-To: <20021208231452.GA26904@digitalkingdom.org> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 3340 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Robin: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:24:29PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > 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/ I and, I infer, Craig, think the objection is a good one. The other digit cmavo are assigned maximally distinct forms, so replacing {rei} with {xei} would be consistent with the principle behind the other digits. I realize that Tinkit is hex's only fan, but Lojban is designed to accommodate hex fans (& I myself am quite pleased that there are words for 'ten, eleven, dozen'). --And.