From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Oct 04 16:56:37 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 04 Oct 2002 16:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailbox-3.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.103])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 17xcJ7-0004uZ-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 04 Oct 2002 16:56:34 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-66-13.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.66.13])
	by mailbox-3.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D01B717892; Sat,  5 Oct 2002 01:52:32 +0200 (DST)
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Cc: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 00:54:11 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMKEDNGKAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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: <200210041943.PAA25069@mail2.reutershealth.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-archive-position: 1909
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
> 
> > I don't have anything remotely approaching mastery of usage. My
> > usage of the past, though it contained grammatical errors, was
> > more saliently characterized for being perversely difficult, in
> > that I deliberately tried to exploit the possibilities allowed
> > by the grammar, rather than staying within the much narrower
> > bounds of conventions of usage. 
> 
> As I recall, you would write
> 
> 	le broda cu brode le brodi le brodo
> 
> correctly but perversely as:
> 
> 	brode be fa le broda bei fe le brodi bei fi le brodo
> 
> which when nested a bit deeper caused the reader to go blind.

That sort of thing, yes. 

It's not all in the past, either. When I went back to my last
spofu fonxa thing to reread it, it was sheer agony; utter murder. 
(It was a good translation, though, mistakes apart.) Of course,
that's part of the point -- it's instructive to find out what
is readable and what isn't, & which bits of the language design
are unusable and which aren't. It might make loi lojbo less
glib about the multifariety of stones it has to kill every one
bird.

--And.