From mark@kli.org Mon Aug 06 19:21:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: mark@kli.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 7 Aug 2001 02:21:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 57428 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2001 02:20:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2001 02:20:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Aug 2001 02:20:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: mark@kli.org Received: from [10.1.2.133] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 07 Aug 2001 02:20:59 -0000 Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 02:20:58 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: CHAT: RE: [lojban] Re: Transliterations survey Message-ID: <9knjaa+u1fp@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: 1395 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 162.33.229.2 From: mark@kli.org --- In lojban@y..., "And Rosta" wrote: > Mark: > > --- In lojban@y..., "And Rosta" wrote: > > > Robin: > > > > On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 05:21:53PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > > > > My daddy was a gambling man; > > > > > He sold my new blue jeans. > > > > > [Ti tum ti tum ti tum ti tum] > > > > > Way down in New Orleans > [...] > > > > My mother was a tailor > > > > she sold my new blue jeans > > > > My father was a gambling man > > > > way down in New Orleans > > > > > > I wonder why she sold my new blue jeans. At least my misremembered > > > verion implies my daddy sold them to pay for his gambling. > > > > Guys, it's *sewed*. Get it? My mother was a TAILOR? Tailors SEW > > things? She *sewed* my new blue jeans. > > [Do you have to be from NYC to master that manner of rhetoric and > diction, or is sufficient to be just an American?] It's a gift. > OK (though what does my mother having sewed my new blue jeans have > to do with my ruin in later life?). So you probably think it's > "Hello darkness, my old friend, I've come to talk with you again" > rather than "Hello darkness. Smile, friend: I've come to talk with > you again". Um, yes, I always thought that... It accords with what I heard as well as the logic of the lyrics... It probably even accords with the "official" lyrics, though I can't be bothered to look that up. ~mark