On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Escape Landsome
<escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:
Escaping sarcastically the difficulty does not solve it either.
Who's being sarcastic?
I understand that lojbanists use to protect themselves against any
criticism, as in a besieged citadel, but the point still holds : <<
if very different concepts are given very near phonological forms,
isn't this a bad move ? >>
I can think of no case where "very different concepts are given very near phonological forms". It is true that there are many cmavo which are very nearly the same, such as FA, SE, etc., but all of these groupings are very closely related to each other, differing in very minor ways.
Your own example of the so'V series is not nearly as "different" as you seem to think. Each of them is a point on the scale All-None, exclusive. The only difference is where on that scale each is, with so'a being closest to All, and so'u closest to None.
And : << Does not the fact natlangs do not have this problem generally
speaking imply that they are more well designed than lojban on this
particular point ? >>