[lojban] Re: CMENE=BRIVLA (was Re: Opinions on "mi viska le sa .i mi cusku zo .djan.")

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net> wrote:
> Ah this is a good point.  The quantifiers on {la djan.} are {ro la
> su'o djan.}.  You don't even need to say the "ro"---there can always
> be more than one djan.

I don't think you can have a {su'o} there as things are... But of course
with CMENE in BRIVLA we wouldn't have to remember those restrictions.

> >        ro da poi djan gi'e slabu mi cu xabju le merko
> 
> How's this better than
> 
> 	ro da poi se cmene zo djan. gi'e slabu mi cu xabju le merko
> 
> Other than syllable count I see no advantage, and we've already
> established that CMENE=BRIVLA is a net loss on syllable count.

It's a matter of aesthetics. There is nothing wrong with the second
version, but there is nothing wrong with the first one either, and
I just don't like restrictions for the sake of restricting.

> > But I'm not saying putting CMENE in BRIVLA will save you syllables.
> > It will just make the grammar simpler.
> [...]
> 
> I'd probably agree with you that the grammar is more complicated
> than it should ideally be.  But I think simplifying it for any
> purpose other than the coolness of having a smaller number of rules
> in the grammar is misguided.  Ease of learning should be a non-issue.

It's all part of the same package for me. A smaller number of rules
is cool in part because it's easier to learn, in part because 
it imposes fewer arbitrary restrictions. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes
 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/