From: justin corwin (outlawpoet@onebox.com)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 18:43:17 MST
oh good lord, it's an invasion!
vocab war!
if we don't win this one, the marklars will take over our homes, making
them some bizarre commie word! we've got to push them back! Our phase
space, our beloved slang, even our participles are at stake!
if we're beat, we'll be forced to retreat to some second-rate language,
like Opposition Force(esperanto), we can't let that happen!
dict() of the world unite!
justin
---- "MARKLAR" <sentience@pobox.com> wrote:
> Marklar! Of course, mun meant:
>
> "Malkevitch M. Malkevitch" wrote:
> >
> > "Malkevitch M. Malkevitch" wrote:
> > > If marklar works, we can move on to replacing all marklars with
> marklar,
> > > thus simplifying all marklars. Of course, contextual marklars
> would have to
> > > be used to figure out the real marklar underlying any given marklar.
> >
> > MALKEVITCH!
>
> Well, Malkevitch, mun guess mun could use "marklar" for marklar,
> "Malkevitch" for proper marklar, and "mun" for marklar. If mun can
> figure
> out where all three marklar come from, mun win a bonus marklar.
>
> -- -- -- --
> Malkevitch M. Malkevitch http://singinst.org/
> Marklar Fellow, Marklar Institute for Artificial Marklar
>
> PS: Hey, mun is great. In the marklar above, "Marklar!" could mean
> either
> "Marklar!", "Marklar!", or "Marklar!", and mun don't have to specify
> which.
> Clearly mun conveys much more marklar in a compressed marklar.
>
__________________________________________________
FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place.
Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:47 MST