reform

["Andrii (lOkadin) Zvorygin" <andrii.z@gmail.com>]

lOjban is great, but it's not as logical as it could be. For the next major revision, should we modify lOjban, or should we call it something else?

maybe not so much we as mi.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about lOjban, its' structure  and implementing it as a programming language. 
I've come to the conclusion that lOjban, is just far too ambiguous in it's current state to be used as it is.

I can understand that when the zo'onai ba'e bAnli fInti la lOjban. were designing lOjban, they had no other logical language (other than loglan) to base themselves off of.

Logical Language Group, is well named, they didn't hard code themselves to lOjban. 

Main reason I don't want to start a new lOjban, off somewhere else: the current lOjban already has a community.

Anyways, if we are going to have to conform to the 1993 guidelines, with those gIsmu, well then there is little I can do, and there is really little to no room for flexibility. 


some proposed revisions, (if you want, for most of these I can give a logical proof):

• making cmAvo corelate with gIsmu, no more, la'a and cu'i meaning completly un-intuitive things.
  
• vei removal of ambiguous gIsmu .inaja removal of zAsni gIsmu ve'o .ije vei removal of gIsmu, poi can be defined in terms of other gIsmu  .inaja removal of sImsa gIsmu . Obviously, that's a ridiculous proposition, as most gIsmu would have to be removed, and it would be very difficult to speak in high level abstractions all the time, and we'd be killing the whole 1993 backwards compatability, so next point is proposition to  save at least some of the gIsmu, (cultural gIsmu must go, they are nothing but to'e socially neutral)
  
• split gIsmu, into at least two classes. sElbri(fAnva) and cmEne(cInfo). how can you tell the difference? two options, can do both:
  
1. make once class CCVCV formation and another CVCCV formation
2. make the rAfsi of sElbri gIsmu be CVV and the rAfsi of the cmEne be CVC or CCV
• change fa fe fi, to pa re ci, no point in wasting CV formation grammar structures. numbers must be declared with a li anyways, gives people more incentive to do so as well.  we can claim it to mean that numbers without li is like saying, first, second, third, to get away with it.
  
• modify lUjvo to make them unambiguous, hopefully will be possible by changing how gIsmu work slightly.
• ba drAta da
  

-- 
ta'o(by the way)  We With You Network at: 
http://lokiworld.org .i(and)
more on Lojban: http://lojban.org
mu'oimi'e lOkadin (Over, my name is lOkadin)