Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t7HYu-0000ZOC; Mon, 23 Oct 95 09:44 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 47C88F6B ; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 8:44:51 +0100 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 03:44:25 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Incredible! X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1165 Lines: 23 The Loglan morphology was redesigned as late as 1979-82 as the Great Morphological Revolution, which is when unique assignment of rafsi was introducved and the current system of making lujvo was invented. A LOT of alternatives were considered at that point, and I have yet to see a single idea that meets all crtieria of the current language - you always seem to need to drop at leats one requirement as "unimportant". The one that came closest was Nora's idea of reserving a specific letter for ends-of-words, but we considered that as a joke even when we porposed it - it just sounds too weird. Ususally proposals either assume that lujvo will be longer than their tanru by sticking some kind of glue in, that cmavo do not have to have a separate word-space from gismu and lujvo (and rafsi), etc. None of these have seemed to be all that much nicer for what they give up. But then I LIKE the current system. So no it has not been frozen for 25 years, just 13. If you want a constantly evolving langauge, look at JCB's TLI Loglan. It changes more rapidly than Lojban and yet still hasn't caught up with us. I haven't figured out how this is possible. lojbab