Re: [lojban] Re: Alphabet proposal one.

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/6/06, Hugh O'Byrne <hobyrne@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I propose that the LLG give that community an official recommendation.
> 
> The LLG has deferred matters concerning language design to the BPFK,
> which is already some three years late and counting in the fullfillment of
> its mission, so don't hold your breath for an official answer.
> 
> As a personal, unofficial recommendation I would say use whichever
> alphabet you prefer. If your goal is to have as many people as
> possible read your Lojban, I recommend you use the Latin alphabet.
> If your goal is to promote the use of some other alphabet, then I
> recommend you use that other one.
> 
> If the CLL or the BPFK ever come to treat the question, my vote will
> be for it not to declare any alphabet official, since I don't really see
> the point of having an official alphabet.
> 
> mu'o mi'e xorxes

Nicely put.

But for those of us with more time than wit, the long-term theoretical question is intersting and
I don;t think will waste too much list space.

Notice, by the way, that since virtually all of Lojban exists primary as ASCII files or the like,
the fabled reprinting problem reduces to simply introducing a new font for the old alphabet. 
Ain't modren science wunnerful? [sic thoughout]