Message-Id: <9108021858.AA01407@dino>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 14:58:06 EDT
From: cbmvax!uunet!dino.ulowell.edu!gryphon (Coranth)
To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
Subject: SUPERL and comments...
Status: RO


Ron Hale-Evans writes:
> *Why* can't we create a language where grammatical correctness implies
> factual correctness?

Because that imposes an external (and arbiratry) limitation on what you
consider reality. What is factual vs. fictional is best left to writers
and philosphers.

> Another question: Why can't we create such a compact language?
> Again, Hofstadter has an interesting comment on this in *Metamagical
> Themas*; he devises the word "cohatalat", which is an acronym for "come
> over here and take a look at this", a phrase most of us use often enough.
> Why hasn't a word like "cohatalat" evolved to fill this niche? Actually, I
> tend to think we *can* create more compact language in just this way. I
> don't think I would have any problem using "cohatalat" in everyday speech
> if anyone actually knew what it meant.

The group I hang around with has many such, including faip (for all intents
and purposes), wysiwyg (pronounced wisy-wig, what you see is what you get)
and w'kw'bfy (pronounced wik-wib-fee, we know what's best for you)

"co'o rodo.

					mi'e korant.
"