From graywyvern@hotmail.com Fri Oct 20 12:19:26 2000
Return-Path: <graywyvern@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: graywyvern@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 20 Oct 2000 19:19:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 11365 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2000 19:19:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 20 Oct 2000 19:19:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO c3.egroups.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta3 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2000 19:19:25 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: graywyvern@hotmail.com
Received: from [10.1.10.127] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Oct 2000 19:19:24 -0000
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:19:18 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: RE:literalism
Message-ID: <8sq5rm+ufag@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <17.c8683c2.2721d013@aol.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 501
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 209.176.48.23
From: "michael helsem" <graywyvern@hotmail.com>

--- In lojban@egroups.com, pycyn@a... wrote:
li'o
> Of the dozen or so recognized ways of constructing tanru and lujvo, 
giving 
> only two (modifier-modified and overlap) seems restrictive even for 
a 
> literalist 

i was referring to Nick's paper (which actually distinguishes three),
which in the Red Book are called "symmetric" & "asymmetric" lujvo.
if i wanted to, i could describe many more varieties, but only 
"good" & "bad" seem relevant at this point. (maybe "GLIKAI" & 
"NALGLIKAI"?)