From rmcivor@macsrule.com Fri Feb 18 07:19:08 2000 X-Digest-Num: 368 Message-ID: <44114.368.2003.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 10:19:08 -0500 From: "Robert A. McIvor" Subject: Re: RE: Re[2]: Dr. James Cooke Brown At 5:26 PM +0300 2/18/00, Vjacxeslav' Ivanov' wrote: >> > From: Vjacxeslav' Ivanov' >.. >> > Yes, uniting WOULD BE... But how is it possible? The only way >> > is to absorbe one community by another, but this way is close, >> > because ekzemple me - I will hardly relearn from the very >> > beginning to Lojban - the same will say most of lojbanists, I >> > think. >> > >> > So, uu, our ways are parallel... >.. >> choosing some appropriate lexical indicator at the start of the text >> one could indicate whether one were writing Loglan in classical or Lojban >> mode. A stage beyond that would be to define word-for-word equivalences >> between the Lojban and classical Loglan lexicons. > >Can such equivalents be found, if the classical and lojban grammars have >differences, as I understand? The idea is rather interesting. For example, >I can start my speeches by smth. like "Hue Slavik ja lentaa la Loglan" :)) >Or we shall invent a "little word" for this... Though in Loglan most >l-initial little words are already "articles". John Cowan has suggested 'hoa' as the Loglan word to introduce Lojban text. It is available, and a reasonable choice, since a similar sounding Lojban word is also available to introduce Loglan text. Sincerely, Robert A. McIvor (rmcivor@mac.com)