From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Nov 29 17:05:46 1995 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Date: Wed Nov 29 17:05:46 1995 Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X3: Extension of JA X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR Message-ID: la djan cusku di'e > I myself proposed this some years ago, but I was persuaded to withdraw it, > and I think the objection is the same that met my proposal: we are already > too close to "anything goes" in syntax. What does this mean? A random string of Lojban words has a very low chance of being grammatical. In what sense are we close or too close to anything goes? > It will become too easy to make > mistakes with logical connectives (which are a critical part of the > logical-language core) that are grammatical but don't mean what you want. Examples? Lojbab said something similar but I don't see how that would be. Why would such mistakes (if they indeed are so easy to make, I don't really see how) be more critical with {je} than with {joi}? > Lojban is altogether too rich in such things already. Lojban has an excess of stuff in some parts, I agree, but I don't see the problem here. The change would simplify the system, by virtualluy reducing the number of selmahos, not complicate it. Jorge