Re: [lojban] Re: Named multiples

[Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>]

Lindar, your reasoning is self-contradictory.

If cmevla break the "phonological fluidity", which presumably is something
that speakers care about (otherwise why would it be a problem?), then isn't
that in itself a strong reason for people to keep coining fu'ivla and lujvo?

On the other hand, if people stop coining fu'ivla and lujvo just because we
allow cmevla to be used as brivla, wouldn't that imply "phonological fluidity"
maybe wasn't that important after all?

I'm certain that this change would increase the usage of cmevla (since it
couldn't possibly decrease it).  But I'm equally certain that common words
would not remain as cmevla if people started getting annoyed with them.

By your reasoning, stage-3 fu'ivla is an even more horrible idea, since who
wants the entire language infected by these weird prefixes and r-hyphens?

And what about the fact that a lujvo can be 15+ letters long?  That's a pain
in the ass.  Who wants to go around saying {mitpavycinglepre}?  No, we need
to put a three-rafsi limit on lujvo, or the language will eventually turn into
some monstrous German-like disaster.

Finally, it's quite ironic that you, who so abhor anything that interferes with
the "phonological fluidity", wants us to "just keep saying {me la}" everywhere.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.