From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Mar 18 14:37:42 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:37:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DCQ62-0008Ic-Uj
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:37:34 -0800
Received: from web81301.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.76])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DCQ5y-0008Hw-Nz
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:37:34 -0800
Message-ID: <20050318223659.68128.qmail@web81301.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81301.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:59 PST
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:59 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: lojban ills: implicit emphasis
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-archive-position: 9612
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

As I recall, someone tried to do combinatorics on
selbri to expalin especially tanru (hence lujvo)
in a systematic way.  This was probably in the
80's so was likely not published (it was about
Loglan, then).  I don't recall any details (and,
not being able to find even my copy of To Mock a
Mockingbird, let alone a serious book, would not
like to reconstruct any of them).  I think though
you are right: that {se} is C; but also the rest
of SE is very complex, even with defined
operators.
 
--- Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
> Yah, you're right -- even with my primitive
> level of Lojban knowledge, I can see that SE
> cmavo could be removed without dramatic loss of
> usability (though as a fan of combinatory
> logic, I would hate to see them go .. se is
> what is called the C combinator in combinatory
> logic ;-)
> 
> ben
>   ----- 
>   > With Lojban, clearly there are no (or
> hardly any) mechanisms that
>   > could be removed and still leave the
> language usable.....  
> 
>   Not true.  You could drop all of the mekso
> cmavo, FA, and SE with
>   only very minor restrictions resulting.  In
> fact, (with my parser at
>   least), you could drop BAI, which is the
> largest cmavo group in the
>   language, as well.
>