From graywyvern@hotmail.com Wed Jun 07 17:22:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14768 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2000 00:22:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 8 Jun 2000 00:22:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.135) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 Jun 2000 00:22:07 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: graywyvern@hotmail.com Received: from [10.1.10.106] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Jun 2000 00:22:06 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:21:59 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: Robin on cmene Message-ID: <8hmov7+5lmc@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <7d.5d9eb86.266e9765@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 532 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "michael helsem" --- In lojban@egroups.com, pycyn@a... wrote: > la robin. cusku > < cmene itself, I think. The whole point of a cmene, as I see it, is that > it is an arbitrary label, and thus can be anything you like, so long as > it conforms to the rules of Lojban morphology (zo'o not that mine always > do). To talk of a standard form for cmene seems contradictory. Didn't the Japanese turn 'Li Po' into "Rihaku"? It really only matters that we be consistent.