[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: response to Steven Belknap on language baselines and stability (long)
- To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
- Subject: Re: response to Steven Belknap on language baselines and stability (long)
- From: Scott Brickner <sjb@UNIVERSE.DIGEX.NET>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 13:31:00 -0600
- In-reply-to: (Your message of Fri, 22 Dec 1995 03:39:29 EST.) <199512220839.DAA16670@access1.digex.net>
- Reply-to: Scott Brickner <sjb@UNIVERSE.DIGEX.NET>
- Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Logical Language Group writes:
>Because the grammar of whatever is non-standard is as unrestricted as the
>capability of non-standardness, there is no cmavo that could unfailingly
>cover the territory. za'e is pretty restricted and does not solve any
>grammar problems.
Sure, but I'd bet one could be devised which would cover *most* of the
territory. The rest could be managed with lo'u/le'u (which could take
the subscript describing the variant, if needed).
I'd also bet that the variants which *can't* be expressed with something
like za'e, but in UI, would never be accepted into the language, anyway.