[lojban-beginners] Re: Fwd: the gismu typos

[Nathaniel Krause <nathanielkrause@yahoo.com>]

--- On Sun, 6/1/08, Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Vid Sintef <picos.picos@gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Fwd: the gismu typos
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Date: Sunday, June 1, 2008, 12:30 AM

> Also, it would wreak havoc with
> the rafsi (sku and dzu at least would have to go).

Yes, some would.

That would be particularly, confusing, then.

> But really {spotu} is not a better word than {spofu}
 -- it's not
"jbomau", it's not easier to
> learn, it doesn't sound better.

What do you mean by "jbomau"? Why should {spofu} be *more Lojbanic*
than {spotu}? Is "color" more English than "colour"?

The etymology says it has two source words with "t" (tut & rot),
and
none with "f". So, how is {spofu} easier to learn than {spotu} from
the perspective of the source languages' speakers? And why should the
former even sound better?

The question is not whether "spofu" sounds better or is more Lojbanic than "spotu" is. "Spofu" is what the word is now. There's no reason to change it unless there is some kind of reason to change it. So, the question is whether "spotu" is somehow better than "spofu", and whether that improvement is sufficient to justify tinkering with the language.

"Spofu" is not easier to learn than "spotu" in principle, but it certainly is easier to learn in principle, since the learner would always be getting confused by old texts which use "spofu", or by speakers who learnt "spofu" previously and have forgotten to switch to the new version.

mu'o mi'e sen