From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:51:53 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 27 May 1993 08:16:26 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3521; Thu, 27 May 93 08:15:37 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4760; Thu, 27 May 93 08:16:52 EDT Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 13:07:36 BST Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: self-segregating morphemes To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: Logical Language Group's message of Sun, 23 May 1993 14:59:27 EDT <9267.9305232127@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Thu May 27 08:16:26 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: <0HUbLIYSCyB.A.h6H.J00kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> > Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 14:59:27 EDT > From: Logical Language Group > > Part of the reason for 'all that complexity' is the requirement that ALL > gosmu have combining forms, not just some of them, It is still only some of them that have 3-letter rafsi. > and that the gismu/rafsi list have some (if not a lot) > expansibility, so that new gismu can be added when new concpets arise. But it can be reasonably expected that the most fundamental gismu have been on the list from the very beginning, and surely it is the most fundamental gismu that warrant 3-letter rafsi. I agree that the current system is astonishingly complex and constitutes an unnecessarily great memory load, but I wouldn't go for even a low degree of ambiguity. I would still have preferred no [remainder of message lost? - Robin Lee Powell - Feb 2010]