From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:59:33 2010 Reply-To: "Trevor C. Hill" Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Oct 07 09:44:27 1996 From: "Trevor C. Hill" Subject: lujvo.... X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 730153691788e9832d3c7c947f30e90e Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1130 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Oct 07 09:44:27 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - Message-ID: I am currently trying to learn lojban, and haven't gotten _that_ far as of yet, but my friend (who is also learning it) and I had an interesting talk about lujvo today.... It seems to me that the problem of ambiguity where an incorrectly constructed lujvo might be interpreted as a tanru, might be greatly simplified by some easy changes... even though it seems that correctly constructed lujvo don't have any problems..... If it were decided that rafsi would automatically bind to the rafsi or gismu coming immediately after, and that lujvo must end in a gismu rather than a rafsi, there would be no ambiguity between tanru and long lujvo, and there would further be no need to use 'r' or 'n' to stick rafsi together. The 'y' would still be used to separate two rafsi when the first ended with the same consonant as in the beginning of the second... Of course, not having used lujvo extensively yet, I really don't have a right to suggest any changes........ because as far as I know the above change might introduce other ambiguities I haven't thought of yet...... :) just a thought, Trevor C. Hill th2x+@andrew.cmu.edu