Message-Id: <199512121729.TAA21976@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 12 Dec 1995 12:07:44 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: lojban dialectology
To:         sjb@universe.digex.net
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1011
Lines: 21

>Out of curiosity, what's to prevent the "natural" evolution of lojban
>from violating some of the design goals?


Nothing. Except perhasp that people who choose to speak Lojban almost always
have some respect for those design goals, and therefore will not consciously
choose a change that violates those 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.

Well, useless is a bit strong, but certainly useles for your purposes.  I am
also opposed stringly to any change thatviolates those design goals.  several
others are as well.  But there exist no language police who can/will force
people to follow the rules.  So there will always be pressure for change
through unconscious deviation.  My contention is that such change will be
slower than any conscious reform efforts like we see from And and Jorge.

lojbab