From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Dec 11 23:16:33 1995
Reply-To: Scott Brickner <sjb@UNIVERSE.DIGEX.NET>
Date: Mon Dec 11 23:16:33 1995
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Scott Brickner <sjb@UNIVERSE.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: lojban dialectology
X-To:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-cc:         ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:37:20 EST.) 
              <199512111637.LAA11968@access1.digex.net>
Status: OR
Message-ID: <vlhjNfPL8zE.A.UPG.Gv0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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.