Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id VAA06872 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 21:31:25 +0200 Message-Id: <199512221931.VAA06872@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id ED675F0E ; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 20:31:25 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 13:31:00 -0600 Reply-To: Scott Brickner Sender: Lojban list From: Scott Brickner Subject: Re: response to Steven Belknap on language baselines and stability (long) X-To: Logical Language Group X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 22 Dec 1995 03:39:29 EST.) <199512220839.DAA16670@access1.digex.net> Content-Length: 611 Lines: 12 Logical Language Group writes: >Because the grammar of whatever is non-standard is as unrestricted as the >capability of non-standardness, there is no cmavo that could unfailingly >cover the territory. za'e is pretty restricted and does not solve any >grammar problems. Sure, but I'd bet one could be devised which would cover *most* of the territory. The rest could be managed with lo'u/le'u (which could take the subscript describing the variant, if needed). I'd also bet that the variants which *can't* be expressed with something like za'e, but in UI, would never be accepted into the language, anyway.