From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Wed Apr 07 16:53:12 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:53:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41903.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.154]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BBMqx-00069m-Cw for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:53:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20040407235236.95763.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.6.29] by web41903.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:52:36 PDT Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:52:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: CMENE=BRIVLA (was Re: Opinions on "mi viska le sa .i mi cusku zo .djan.") To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20040407233543.GA66109@allusion.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7494 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jordan DeLong wrote: > Ah this is a good point. The quantifiers on {la djan.} are {ro la > su'o djan.}. You don't even need to say the "ro"---there can always > be more than one djan. I don't think you can have a {su'o} there as things are... But of course with CMENE in BRIVLA we wouldn't have to remember those restrictions. > > ro da poi djan gi'e slabu mi cu xabju le merko > > How's this better than > > ro da poi se cmene zo djan. gi'e slabu mi cu xabju le merko > > Other than syllable count I see no advantage, and we've already > established that CMENE=BRIVLA is a net loss on syllable count. It's a matter of aesthetics. There is nothing wrong with the second version, but there is nothing wrong with the first one either, and I just don't like restrictions for the sake of restricting. > > But I'm not saying putting CMENE in BRIVLA will save you syllables. > > It will just make the grammar simpler. > [...] > > I'd probably agree with you that the grammar is more complicated > than it should ideally be. But I think simplifying it for any > purpose other than the coolness of having a smaller number of rules > in the grammar is misguided. Ease of learning should be a non-issue. It's all part of the same package for me. A smaller number of rules is cool in part because it's easier to learn, in part because it imposes fewer arbitrary restrictions. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/