At 11:40 PM 12/7/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
You are likely right about the lack of redundancy, but (a) it is
unlikely to be a frequent problem, given that word recognition uses
pragmatic as well as phonetic clues,
On the contrary, it has already been a problem. TLI Loglan had it with
their numbers
(which are ni ne to te fo fe so se vo ve), which Bob Chassell and others
had problems with, so I made the Lojban set what it is now - yet people
object to re/rei. But we instituted our own redundancy problem with
se/te/ve/xe, a move that I much regretted later, but which was noticed in
1989 when we first tried to have Lojban conversation.
I suspect that when rapid, fluent Lojban conversation occurs,
se/te/ve/xe will just be cognised as "the sumti aren't in the normal
order" and context will do the rest. I used to do a similar thing when
reading some of xod's outrageous fi-fie-fo-fum sentences ;-)