From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Jun 09 18:22:05 2000
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Received: (qmail 13038 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2000 01:22:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jun 2000 01:22:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mo.egroups.com) (10.1.1.34) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2000 01:22:04 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: jjllambias@hotmail.com
Received: from [10.1.10.102] by mo.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jun 2000 01:22:04 -0000
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:22:00 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: Bootlegger
Message-ID: <8hs57o+3bcu@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <00060919121805.00838@neofelis>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 478
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>


la pier cusku di'e

> So far the word is =ABnalkempavbivmoiga'imercmu
flake'exalpixycanja=BB. 
Is it
> correct? Should some rafsi be moved around or changed?

You could use jikry- instead of xalpixy-, but hopefully
you're not seriously thinking of using such a word. 
Why not just {jikru zercanja} or something like that?
A lujvo doesn't have to contain a definition in itself,
and a lot of what is in there seems rather unessential 
to the concept anyway.

co'o mi'e xorxes