RE: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o (fwd)

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

pc:
> nicholas@uci.edu writes: 
>   And if you wanted Lojban to be only 
>   about Sapir-Whorf and getting it speakable, and not about logical 
>   quibbling and rigour, then I am yet again forced to ask And's question: 
>   Why did you pick a logic-based conlang to start with? You could have 
>   dispensed with all the logic quibbling, and still gotten your Sapir-Whorf 
>   effects, if you'd worked with Laadan.) 
> 
> In fairness to Lojbab, he is stuck with what he inherited from Jim to a 
> certain extent -- and that includes a mass of confusions.  As for Laadan, it 
> is clearly too inchoate to be much use as a conlang.  

Not too inchoate by Lojbab's standards. For Lojbab, the more inchoate the
better -- the more inchoate the language is, the more there is for Usage
to Decide.

--And.