[lojban] Re: minimal lojban

[GREGORY DYKE <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

I don't think we need a kernel for Lojban (in the formal sense). More of a balance between what we would like to say and what we are willing to learn.

--
e'osai ko sarji la lojban - www.lojban.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 8:41 pm
Subject: [lojban] Re: minimal lojban

> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 05:27:39AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > but i know there are bo and (ke, ke'i)... surely lojban isn't
> > > complete without these??
> > 
> > ke and ke'e are very rarely used. 
> 
> I'm actually starting to use them quite often, oddly enough.
> 
> > bo is more often used in the {i <tag> bo} or the {na'e bo}
> > constructions than in tanru. In the end it's a matter of taste
> > whether you think ke-ke'e, bo or co is more essential for lojban.
> > I wouldn't include bo and ke-ke'e in my minimal lojban, but that's
> > just my point of view.
> 
> If a minimal Lojban includes tanru, you *must* have one or the
> other, or you lose expressive power.  As it seems to me that the
> goas here is to produce a Kernel Language for Lojban (that is, the
> most minimal set of Lojban from which all the rest of Lojban can be
> described as just shortcuts), you don't want to lose expressive
> power.
> 
> -Robin
> 
> -- 
> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
> Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
> Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
> 
> 
>