From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Apr 22 18:18:02 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_5); 23 Apr 2003 01:18:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 57255 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2003 01:18:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 23 Apr 2003 01:18:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2003 01:18:02 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 1988te-00031v-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:18:02 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1988tW-00031S-00; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:17:54 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1988tO-00031I-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:17:47 -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 h3N1T1sr047260 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:29:01 -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 h3N1T12w047259 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:29:01 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:29:01 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: mi'e Message-ID: <20030423012901.GA47223@allusion.net> References: <20030423000907.GA46531@allusion.net> <20030423005003.15935.qmail@web20512.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030423005003.15935.qmail@web20512.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 4894 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 --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 05:50:03PM -0700, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > la djorden cusku di'e > > Why are they kludgey? "zei" is a single syllable. >=20 > But each component keeps its own stress. I can't help hearing them > like separate words. That's a good point. > > 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 > Well, I do think y and r glue are kludgey too, just somewhat less > so than {zei}. If {zei} wasn't kludgy we would only use zei-lujvo, > since they are so much more clear. Why do we prefer {bacrynandu} > to {bacru zei nandu}? Because it saves 1 syllable. But I *don't* prefer things like "ma'arbroda" to "cmanybroda". In fact I don't understand the purpose of CV'V rafsi at all. Out of curiousity, why are "r" and "y" 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 --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+pexdDrrilS51AZ8RAvYMAKDIhHIhs0n0U/nTtTqOeA5DvBLyjQCglyU4 D7YPH7AF/O56jtLTz0gtxIg= =wcnE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT--