From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed May 28 03:25:27 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 6960 invoked from network); 28 May 2003 10:25:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 May 2003 10:25:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.114) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 May 2003 10:25:21 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-60-106.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.60.106]) by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE29B48EF3 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 12:25:19 +0200 (MEST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Digest Number 1753 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 11:25:20 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19959 Probably this reply shdn't go to Lojban list, but since it is in reply to a message on that list, here goes: Nick: > > From: "And Rosta" > >Subject: Re: emotions > > > > > No one has been hurt, so far as I know, by "le du'u"/"le se du'u" and > >> "la'edi'u" being longer than one syllable, and I can imagine few things > >> that need a shorter one > > > >I am an atypical lojbanist, but I have been hugely bugged by "lo'edu'u" > >and xorxes by "la'edi'u". They don't actively harm me, but it pains me > >to use them, to the extent that it poisons my pleasure in using Lojban > >It wouldn't surprise me if future newcomers to Lojban who had the sort > >of refined linguistic sensibilities one observes in the likes of > >xorxes would be similarly pained > > > >Not that I don't think it is too late to change Lojban. Lojban is far > >into the "take it ot leave it" stage, and can no longer be adapted to > >suit the tastes or even the needs of its users > > While this is mostly true, there's a non-zero chance you'll get {laudu'u} I can see how that would be a big help in making more palatable your heroic efforts to salvage the gadri system. > la'edi'u, OTOH, I don't see as having a snowball's chance, because > the point that it is compositional is so important. (We need to > police the la'e/lu'e distinction.) We can consider an exptal cmavo > equivalent to just la'edi'u, but I would be prejudiced against it. > And I gotta say, I have not felt la'edi'u to be overlong, the way I > would feel lo'edu'u --- I think because la'edi'u is its own NP, and > lo'edu'u a determiner Fair enough. But, setting aside the frequency of {di'e} due to the way x2 of cusku is defined, {la'edi'u} is way the most frequent phrase containing an anaphor of the di'e series. Every time one utters those four syllables one is liable to think "If only the di'e series had been defined in terms of utterance meanings, we could dispense with two of these syllables (and if {dei} had been assigned to the most frequent of the series, we could reduce the phrase from four syllables to one)". This may or may not have a snowball's chance of being changed -- if it did change, it would be for the better, but still just a drop in the ocean -- but you must have had the experience of using a tool or a piece of software whose poor design causes you wasted effort, & the sense of impotent rage that that engenders. > Like I say, And, the vote on lau/toi/foi is not out yet; there is a > non-zero chance they'll be reallocated. (Although I admit the > pertinent shepherd is not as enthusiastic about this as I am...) > Let's wait till the vote Is this the lerfu shepherd or gadri shepherd? (I am 37 messages behind on BPFK.) > *sigh* I doubt Lojban will *ever* satisfy you as a formal object.) It is certain that it never will. -- Which is in a way a good thing for the fundamentalist/conservative camp: since no conservative-- progressive compromise will ever satisfy the progressives, there is no point in the progressives striving to deny the conservatives the language they want. --And.