From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:29 2010 Reply-To: Scott Brickner Sender: Lojban list Date: Fri Dec 22 14:58:23 1995 From: Scott Brickner Subject: Re: response to Steven Belknap on language baselines and stability (long) To: Logical Language Group Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 22 Dec 1995 03:39:29 EST.) <199512220839.DAA16670@access1.digex.net> Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 22 14:58:23 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: <7B8k71LNvqG.A.vFF.Ju0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> 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.