From graywyvern@hotmail.com Wed Jun 07 17:22:07 2000
Return-Path: <graywyvern@hotmail.com>
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" <graywyvern@hotmail.com>

--- In lojban@egroups.com, pycyn@a... wrote:
> la robin. cusku 
> <<The discussion of standardisation also has a bearing on the 
concept of a
> 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.