Re: [lojban] Re: The Mad Proposals

[Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Betsemes <betsemes@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robin is for quite a lot of changes. What is keeping changes from happening
> is not the BDFL, but the baseline.

One question; is the Lojban connective system broken as it is now? Or
is it just unnecessarily complex?

mu'o mi'e betsemes

It has one significant flaw that the CLL actually makes quite explicit, namely that certain combinations of connectives (certain nonlogical forethought connectives, in particular) simply aren't available. The proposal does make these parse, as I recall. However they have proven, in the past, to be rather infrequently desirable, so whether their absence is really a problem is debatable.

Whether the connective system is unnecessarily complex is *very* debatable. It is definitely redundant. The proposed system has significantly fewer words and yet the two can almost be interconverted by lexical substitution. Whether this way of doing things is truly "simpler", since it involves compounds replacing what used to be single words as well as {gi} having an enormous variety of uses, is another question entirely.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

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