From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Apr 22 16:58:25 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_5); 22 Apr 2003 23:58:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 73214 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2003 23:58:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Apr 2003 23:58:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2003 23:58:20 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 1987eV-0002Gk-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:58:19 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1987eN-0002GR-00; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:58:12 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1987e4-0002GC-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:57:53 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3N097sr046619 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:09:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3/Submit) id h3N097hM046618 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:09:07 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:09:07 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: mi'e Message-ID: <20030423000907.GA46531@allusion.net> References: <3EA588D8.29915.1B8B1B1@localhost> <20030422171244.6892.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030422171244.6892.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 4892 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 From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 10:12:44AM -0700, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > la filip cusku di'e [...] > > My Lojban fails me, but what I'm trying to say is that while you are=20 > > free to prefer words of the form "nanytcoso", you cannot give as a=20 > > reason for the preference that it is not possible to form lujvo from=20 > > fu'ivla and that therefore, cultural gismu are required in order to=20 > > form convenient lujvo. >=20 > Yes, I tend to forget that zei-lujvo are lujvo too. But I wouldn't > call them _convenient_ lujvo, as they are rather kludgey. I prefer=20 > all cultures be treated the same way as far as possible. Why are they kludgey? "zei" is a single syllable. I think the reason you (and others) think it is kludgey is because there are spaces in the spelling of lujvo with zei. Think of "zei" like you think of the "y" or "r" or whatnot you add to other lujvo (bacrynandu, ma'argaltu), and it doesn't seem at all kludgey. --=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 --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+pdmiDrrilS51AZ8RAhH2AKDGAFjU/ItbYcIcMNu0ww8XJ/s3owCffkC1 VqKJnLjb6M2PH451iRc/OKA= =1g0D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf--