From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat May 31 09:47:10 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 31 May 2008 09:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K2UEY-0002GD-FQ for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 09:47:10 -0700 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.174]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K2UET-0002Fv-HH for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 09:47:10 -0700 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so272448wfg.25 for ; Sat, 31 May 2008 09:47:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=XVgND2wvmdtVQ1Nn6ZprH0TJLJG2l08jzxuXkceo0wc=; b=NTcm0DKLBL3aFnDkU5tq6ZkKinHrqgoi/9Vu70OuuXV6BPpIH05/+rEaj5LICq17fiFDzLtmpKv0eihZcyM58gkxsh5OZUvqBRraFD+DQQsb8PZifNgXy3DZqCkANzLBFwAKwbjdnDqENWdCrKMG2WbDAus00uGUzz3QTCuPtys= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=loOCw0Ady2dmqOGnA43A/PpYEYUQZp/oJsX0DtcHnC2ey3xrSjLO6yMfdb6HQQnMUdOMk2fxb9w8aIKYr2IN/P5bfzzJIA1MR7x1az6MWfgkpwkn+j3NwH33yirpaMI1QC+obo4DTBU49GFvGjiq58KTK5dUoCwo7VeYBpmt1EE= Received: by 10.142.86.7 with SMTP id j7mr1230191wfb.78.1212252420807; Sat, 31 May 2008 09:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.41.17 with HTTP; Sat, 31 May 2008 09:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:47:00 -0500 From: "Marjorie Scherf" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Fwd: the gismu typos In-Reply-To: <2f91285f0805310930i6bc3744axf656ccc3a599214a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_19327_9279448.1212252420808" References: <2f91285f0805300810i2f7fb929oe927c5434d9b7f93@mail.gmail.com> <12d58c160805300852m2f922402n556158970101b80e@mail.gmail.com> <12d58c160805300858r60f0659ase172a2f1106e0916@mail.gmail.com> <2f91285f0805310930i6bc3744axf656ccc3a599214a@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 624 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: skaryzgik@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_19327_9279448.1212252420808 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Vid Sintef wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:58 PM, komfo,amonan > wrote: > > What you lose by doing that is decreased readability/usability of Lojban > > texts written previous to the change. You would, for example, have to > search > > on both variants to research usage examples. > > I think of its analogy to the British vs American English. Different dialects/languages always have different rules. That's what makes them be different dialects. "British" and "American" English are very similar to each other and are mutually intelligible in the vast majority of situations, but they are still not the same. The line between dialects and languages is not a sharp one, there is no clear distinction. Unless we want to construct separate dialects of Lojban, having the different spellings would add ambiguity. Ambiguity which is unnecessary and can be avoided, at least for the time being. But isn't one of Lojban's core principles that it is designed to avoid unnecessary ambiguities? .imu'omi'e .skaryzgik. -- .i ko tcesi'a la .diskord. http://skaryzgik.blogspot.com .i mi'e la poi jitro be lo jdaca'i ku'o .skaryzgik. poi raibalralju selsi'afanva ------=_Part_19327_9279448.1212252420808 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:58 PM, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you lose by doing that is decreased readability/usability of Lojban
> texts written previous to the change. You would, for example, have to search
> on both variants to research usage examples.

I think of its analogy to the British vs American English.

Different dialects/languages always have different rules. That's what makes them be different dialects. "British" and "American" English are very similar to each other and are mutually intelligible in the vast majority of situations, but they are still not the same.

The line between dialects and languages is not a sharp one, there is no clear distinction. Unless we want to construct separate dialects of Lojban, having the different spellings would add ambiguity. Ambiguity which is unnecessary and can be avoided, at least for the time being. But isn't one of Lojban's core principles that it is designed to avoid unnecessary ambiguities?

.imu'omi'e .skaryzgik.


--
.i ko tcesi'a la .diskord.
http://skaryzgik.blogspot.com
.i mi'e la poi jitro be lo jdaca'i ku'o .skaryzgik. poi raibalralju selsi'afanva ------=_Part_19327_9279448.1212252420808--