From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Tue Jul 31 19:03:14 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 02:03:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 20834 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 02:01:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 02:01:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO relay3-gui.server.ntli.net) (194.168.4.200) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 02:01:06 -0000
Received: from m22-mp1-cvx1b.bir.ntl.com ([62.255.40.22] helo=andrew) by relay3-gui.server.ntli.net with smtp (Exim 3.03 #2) id 15Rl4b-0004ls-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 01 Aug 2001 02:45:21 +0100
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi}
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 03:00:18 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMMEPKEHAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <F38wspDKicUbvBDxroC00003c88@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >Here you hit on one of my logical peeves with Lojban. In my own loglan,
> >you have to say not "ci da poi prenu cu klama" but (the equivalent of)
> >
> > da poi ke'a ci mei ku'o ro de poi ke'a me lu'a da zo'u
> > de ge prenu gi klama
> 
> But those two are not equivalent. Your version does not preclude
> there being a fourth person that goes.
> 
> >And this then makes "ci da poi prenu cu prami re lu'a le cimei"
> >come out with greater clarity as:
> >
> > da poi ke'a ci mei ku'o
> > ro de poi ke'a me lu'a da ku'o
> > da xi re poi ke'a re mei ku'o
> > ro de xi re poi ke'a me lu'a da xi re zo'u
> > de xi re ge me lu'a da gi se prami de
> 
> Again, I think that means {su'ocida poi prenu cu prami su'ore
> lu'a le su'ocimei}.

You're right. I tend to forget the goatleg rule, and I suspect most
other people do too. At any rate, I think your comment is tangential
to the point I was making.

> >Of course, Lojban makes this impossibly verbose (tho in my loglan it takes
> >only 10-12 short words).
> 
> When do we get a peek at your loglan?

Last year I abandoned it to concentrate on my poesy, but it seems to have
resuscitated. I can't see it getting properly documented in the next few
years, but if we ever find a forum for loglans/loglangs in general then I
would discuss it.

--And.