From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Oct 19 13:58:32 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 19 Oct 2000 20:58:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 8347 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2000 20:58:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Oct 2000 20:58:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mu.egroups.com) (10.1.1.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Oct 2000 20:58:27 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.4.67] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Oct 2000 20:58:27 -0000 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:58:21 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: literalism [was: Re: [lojban] Re: looking at arjlujv.txt Message-ID: <8snn9d+v19k@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 808 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, "michael helsem" wrote: > >From: pycyn@a... > li'o > >Literalism > > TO LE SATCI LUJVO SE JINVI TOI > TOLMELBI FO MA --i can see a good case for, lojbanically, precision & > clarity seeming more beautiful than imprecision... I'm all other than sure about this well-sounding statement: there are real horrible-looking (-sounding) lujvo monsters, maybe only appropriate for silly machines (sometimes worse than Assembler encoded text). I'm pleading for short-/conciseness rather than pedantic descriptiveness. (That doesn't mean that I do not agree with xorxes. to "respect" the places, or with maikl. to avoid fancy metaphors). Lujvo should be "convincing" from their meaning and concise to keep them in memory (they should become "lokshe"). .aulun.