Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of almikes@aol.com designates 64.12.143.81 as permitted sender) client-ip=64.12.143.81;
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 02:18:48 +0200
From: "'Wuzzy' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: criticism of lojban needed
Message-ID: <20140903021848.63cc39c5@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <5eccb6c5-6904-4b30-a49c-455e9bb1d32a@googlegroups.com>
References: <CAO7bV+gzuMQacgo6dwYAhyUd1NEVv-6Up2uC=j=XFGvx+bU+QA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5eccb6c5-6904-4b30-a49c-455e9bb1d32a@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

Am Mon, 1 Sep 2014 06:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
schrieb TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>:


> * gismu has no taxonomic (a priori) design at all
This doesn=E2=80=99t have to be a bad thing. The taxonomic approach has als=
o
its own problems. For example, a taxonomic approach has the danger of
implying to much, making the vocabulary less flexible.

Lojban=E2=80=99s approach, making each word=E2=80=99s definition practicall=
y
independent from each other, makes it more flexible flexible.

So it is arguable if it is actually a bad thing to use no taxonomic
design.


> * sounds a bit like an Apache Polish American speaking atonal Chinese
LOL! Even if that would be true, I don=E2=80=99t see how this is even an ar=
gument?

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.