From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Feb 20 16:27:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 21 Feb 2001 00:26:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 43078 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2001 00:26:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2001 00:26:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2001 01:27:25 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (164.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.164]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1L0QI264797 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:26:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010220192607.00aece70@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:29:53 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [lojban] RE:su'u In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 11:41 PM 02/19/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: >la and cusku di'e > >I wonder why we have all this faffing about with fu'ivla, then, > >when we could simply make a zei lujvo. > >I suppose because zei lujvo are not morphologically one word, >so they don't feel right. Zipf. People tend to want the shortest word they can find for more frequent usages (and at this point, all fu'ivla are relatively more frequent usages). Or maybe people are just lazy typists. > > > a) la djan krici le du'u da poi ckaji me la margrt tatcr cu nanmu > > > >(margrt fatcr is a better lojbanization) > >Did English "th" went to "f" in gismu making? Not English. It is possible that we did this for one of the other languages (I can't remember what we did for Spanish). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org