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 (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA18800 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 1995 02:37:58 +0200 Message-Id: <199512120037.CAA18800@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id EE23DDCB ; Tue, 12 Dec 1995 1:37:58 +0100 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:35:46 -0600 Reply-To: Scott Brickner Sender: Lojban list From: Scott Brickner Subject: Re: lojban dialectology X-To: Logical Language Group X-cc: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:37:20 EST.) <199512111637.LAA11968@access1.digex.net> Content-Length: 634 Lines: 15 Logical Language Group writes: >Instead, why not speak the language as defined and let it evolve NATURALLY >rather than by intent? Out of curiosity, what's to prevent the "natural" evolution of lojban from violating some of the design goals? I've a pet project involving computer interpretation of lojban. I specifically liked lojban for its lack of syntactic ambiguity and audio-visual isomorphism. The loss of these features would render the language useless, IMHO. If there's no difference between lojban and Esperanto except that the words are harder to memorize in lojban, why bother? Especially since E has more speakers.