From arntrich@stud.ntnu.no Wed Oct 18 06:43:16 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: arntrich@stud.ntnu.no X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 18 Oct 2000 13:43:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 17205 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2000 13:43:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Oct 2000 13:43:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO elefant.stud.ntnu.no) (129.241.56.22) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Oct 2000 13:43:10 -0000 Received: from hff103-01 (dhcp-29126.stud.hf.ntnu.no [129.241.29.126]) by elefant.stud.ntnu.no (8.10.0.Beta12/8.10.0.Beta12) with SMTP id e9IDgxk15066 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:43:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20001018153338.011bd270@pop.stud.ntnu.no> X-Sender: arntrich@pop.stud.ntnu.no X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:33:38 +0200 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Regarding arjlujv.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Arnt Richard Johansen Looking over my own post from last Thursday about the lujvo definitions I've put up in the eGroups file area, I realized that it might be misinterpreted. In case there should be any doubt about it, the lujvo I've defined in arjlujv.txt are (with the exception of "vlatai") not my own coinings. They are my interpretations of some of the entries in the file . I've tried to include only the higher frequency words from there. That is to say, I've tried to be fairly descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) in the choice of which words to include. -- Arnt Richard Johansen | My conlanger code: http://people.fix.no/arj/ | CCS/LI !lcg+ c?:R:S:H a+ y n18:? R?>P A+ E L++++>--- arj@fix.no | N2 Ivs k- ia-:+ p-- m o>+ P--- d? b? !