From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon Oct 07 01:34:22 1996 Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA15969 ; Mon, 07 Oct 96 01:34:20 BST Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 844559005:05863:0; Sun, 06 Oct 96 00:43:25 BST Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net id aa05217; 6 Oct 96 0:42 BST Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 6489; Sat, 05 Oct 96 19:42:11 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0947; Sat, 05 Oct 96 19:41:58 EDT Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 19:40:42 -0400 Reply-To: "Trevor C. Hill" Sender: Lojban list From: "Trevor C. Hill" Subject: lujvo.... X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <844558946.5217.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R 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