X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.4+cl+patch 10/10/95
To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
cc: conlang@diku.dk, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: CONLANG: Lojban - why the gismu-making algorithm 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Dec 1995 14:03:19 EST."
             <199512071903.OAA11369@access1.digex.net> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 10:12:46 +0000
From: Edmund Grimley-Evans <Edmund.Grimley-Evans@CL.CAM.AC.UK>
Message-Id: <E0tNznM-0007bz-00@bescot.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-conlang@diku.dk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Edmund Grimley-Evans <Edmund.Grimley-Evans@CL.CAM.AC.UK>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec  8 05:37:44 1995
X-From-Space-Address: owner-conlang@diku.dk

> A few years ago we added instrumentation to the PC LogFlash version to
> allow for some testing of the algorithm.

It seems to me that a vital part of the test ought to be to construct 
an alternative Lojban vocabulary, with the same phonology but with 
roots chosen purely randomly, and then invent a pseudo-etymology, or 
just mnemonics, to help English speakers memorise this alternative 
vocabulary. Then test whether the actual Lojban vocabulary, derived by 
such a cunning algorithm, is any easier to learn than the random vocab 
plus cleverly devised mnemonics. Is this what you are intending to do?

Edmundo