Re: SNU: lojban evolution

[Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>]

> It seems to me that it is only John's remarkable powers of perspicuous
> exposition that prevents Lojban from being impenetrably arcane. It
> seems to require sophistication. You couldn't really call any current
> lojbanist unsophisticated. I can't understand how newcomers like Jorge
> & Goran seem to instantly know the language inside out.

.i .uanai xu do ranxi .i mi na djuno roda la lojban. .iku'i pami xe'i lo
nanca beli reji'i ca'a pilno le bangu .i la xorxes. zmadu mi tu'a le jai
xe'i selbau la lojban. .i .e'enai mi na jundi loi logji je bangu steci
nunsnu .iku'i ri'a lenu le jalge be ri cu cnano selski kei mi co'a la'a
pilno ra

> In what sense is Lojban intended to be "a model of a natural language"?
> You mean it's modelled ON natural language?

.i mi se ctuca filedu'u zoi gy. model .gy. noi ci'ersaptai le pa'a ciste
cu sapmau gi'e jicmu dunli .i mi jimpe tu'a la lojbab. .ijo la lojban.
ci'ersaptai lo'e bangu

> > If you use the official version of the language, you are speaking
> > Lojban.  If you deviate too far, then the vast majority of Lojbanists
> > will reject your usage as non-Lojban.  (Jim Carter can undoubtedly
> > testify to this.)  And seems to be trying to explore to find out where
> > that point is %^).
>
> Do you mean jimc can testify to his usage not being Lojban? Jimc's
> silence appears to be relatively self-imposed; I rather wish he would
> tout guaspi a bit more on this list. I might be willing to consider
> guaspi to be lojban.

.i tu'a la gua-spi!s. cu cinri mi .i mi nelci cada lenu casnu gy. .iku'i
la gua-spi!s. na mintu la lojban.

co'o mi'e. goran.