From sentto-44114-2642-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Wed May 10 20:10:00 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 26325 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 20:09:49 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 10 May 2000 20:09:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 14123 invoked by uid 40001); 10 May 2000 20:10:42 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 14120 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 20:10:42 -0000 Received: from cj.egroups.com (208.50.144.68) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 10 May 2000 20:10:42 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2642-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 May 2000 20:10:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 23788 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 20:10:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 May 2000 20:10:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.51.26) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 May 2000 20:09:59 -0000 Received: from default ([62.0.167.87]) by out.newmail.net ; Wed, 10 May 2000 23:11:14 +02:00 To: lojban@egroups.com Priority: normal In-reply-to: <11.3110cb6.263cc12c@aol.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Message-ID: <95802547501@out.newmail.net> From: "Adam Raizen" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:14:35 +0200 Reply-To: araizen@newmail.net Subject: Re: [lojban] re: nazycau gerku and najyzme Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit la pycyn cusku di'e > Is it time for the occasional worry about the lack of redundancy (= the > packedness of some word spaces) in Lojban? I don't really think that Lojban does lack redundancy. I'm not sure what you mean by packedness of word spaces, but I don't think it's true if you mean that basically every word is necessary. Lojban has many words which define grammatical structure unambiguously but nevertheless are rarely needed to understand the sentence. Take for example words like 'va'o', 'ri'a', etc. These are basically always followed by 'le nu', and thus 'le nu' is redundant, except in a strict lojban grammatical definition. In addition, if the language really does lack necessary redundancy somewhere, it has enough machinery that its speakers should have no problem inventing the necessary redundancy. For example, I find that I sometimes add redundant FA's, especially when talking about the third place of 'knows/opines/intuits/etc. x2 about x3', maybe because the redundancy makes it easier to interpret. co'o mi'e adam ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bids starting at $7 for thousands of products - uBid.com http://click.egroups.com/1/3027/3/_/17627/_/957989440/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com