Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

[Betsemes <betsemes@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org> wrote:
> There are countries with laws on the linguistic forms of allowed names.
> Iceland requires that names be declinable in Icelandic. Turkey prohibits some
> non-Turkic letters in names, which annoys Kurds, who use these letters in both
> names and ordinary words in their language. Why shouldn't Lojbangug have such
> a law?

Because Lojbangug doesn't exist, it's fictional and Lojban has not
been accepted anywhere. The need for such a law makes even the most
remote possibility of Lojban being adopted even remoter.

All this argument falls apart if you argue that Lojban is not intended
to become mainstream, but if so then what's the point of making a
language if it's not intended for real use?

> I favor keeping cmevla and brivla syntactically distinct. We've already
> eliminated the adjective and the adverb. Why eliminate the noun as well?

I favor them to be merged. It'd simplify the grammar, making Lojban
more attractive to the mainstream. Currently, naming is the weakest
point for accomplishing this.

mu'o mi'e betsemes

-- 
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.