Message-Id: <199511241938.OAA04457@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Fri, 24 Nov 1995 14:27:54 -0500
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: serving the needs of Lojban learners
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

Chris:
> Actually if we were really ambitious we could come up with some more
> strictly defined subsets of Lojban and different conversations could limit
> themselves to a particular level to keep things accessible to everyone;
> furthermore we could use the subsets as a basis for graded texts and even
> have the future textbook adhere to their ordering.  Something like this for
> example:

I like the idea, but I would merge the "Street Lojban" and "Standard
Lojban" categories into one, I don't really think it is necessary to split
so much. Also, I propose to use a more scientific approach to select the
"Basic Lojban" vocabulary: use the most frequent 400 gismu from the Lojban
text that has appeared on the list so far (this should be enough to give good
statistics) and the same for cmavo, although perhaps prune this one a
bit for systematicity.

> Level I Lojban - "Basic Lojban"
>   Uses only the first 400 gismu (in the Logflash file order)
>   tanru
>   a certain list of well-accepted lujvo, plus -mau, -rai...
>   mi, do, ko'a, mi'o ma'a do'o
>   le, la, lo, cu, nu, ka, ni, du'u
>   pu, ba, ca, vi va vu, zi za zu
>   .e, .a, .o, .u, .anai, joi
>   .ui, .oi
>   coi, doi, co'o, mi'e

For example, I think {lei} and {loi} are infinitely more important
(and necessary, and used) than all the tenses in that list.
Also, the connectives .o and .u are pretty rare.

> Level IV Lojban - "Academic Lojban"
>   termsets
>   MEX
>   letteral shifts
>   ...?

I agree with those. I think the only other complete selmaho I would add
is GUhA. (I would also add specific cmavo from other selmahos.)

Jorge