From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Fri May 21 06:52:15 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Fri, 21 May 1993 10:58:07 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7954; Fri, 21 May 93 10:57:20 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 5553; Fri, 21 May 93 10:53:19 EDT Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 10:52:15 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Cowan on morphology X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: Message-ID: I hate to complain, but could And enlighten us to what he finds baroque or ghastly about Lojban morphology. I can'rt think of anything much simpler than having components that represent each possible root, and putting them together in the order they would appear in a syntactic based compound. You can call it complex to have multiple choices for the morpheme to represent some roots in some positions, but since you can always use the longest form, and ALL forms of the root are identical in meaning and completely interchangeable, the effects of this polymorphism is minimized in terms of langauge understanding, while allowing for a redundancy that Lojban like most highly regular conlangs, tends to otherwise lack. lojbab