Re: To clarify...

[thinkit8@lycos.com]

--- In lojban@y..., "And Rosta" <a.rosta@n...> wrote:
> Tinkit:
> > --- In lojban@y..., "And Rosta" <a.rosta@n...> wrote:
> [...]
> > > It's interesting that there is such near-unanimity (among those
> > > who care about design issues) that the morphology is a disaster
> > > and that shorter gismu and no rafsi would have been a much 
better
> > > solution. It's this sort of thing that leads me to believe that
> > > had the development of Loglan/Lojban been allowed to be driven 
> > > primarily by design issues rather than by the wish to reach a
> > > stable and usable form as quickly as possible, the language 
> > > would nonetheless have tended to progressively stabilize as
> > > the optimal design -- objectively arrived at through the 
consensus
> > > of rational minds -- was progressively approximated ever more
> > > closely.
> > 
> > Very interesting.  My initial desire was to keep the morphology 
but 
> > redo the gismu, rafsi, and cmavo so the rafsi and cmavo could be 
> > regularly deduced from the gismu.  Now this is sounding much 
better, 
> > but unfortunately lojban is sounding more broken :(.  I think 
John 
> > Cowan mentioned that the morphology isn't even fully debugged, 
which 
> > further makes it seem in doubt.
> 
> Any loglan that is to be sufficiently usable and stable to acquire
> a community of users MUST perforce be 'broken' to some degree. New
> ways will always be found to improve the language, however many
> improvements you make. And both Lojban and Classical Loglan had
> the declared aims of acquiring a community of users. Lojban has
> never claimed to be perfect. It does, though, embody the fruits
> of the labours of very many very intelligent minds, so even in
> its 'broken' design it is nonetheless of great value.
> 
> So yes, Lojban is 'broken', but this is by deliberate policy and
> by the will of the vast majority of Lojbanists, and there is no
> false advertising that claims anything to the contrary, so there 
> is no point in *complaining* about it. However, a minority of 
> Lojbanists are interested in design issues, so one can still 
> discuss purely hypothetical changes to the language.
> 
> --And.

Of course, everything is relative, nothing is perfect, and nobody is 
immortal.  If I was a baby entering the world, I'd still pick lojban 
over English.  It's still relatively better.