Em domingo, 12 de abril de 2020 00:24:22 UTC+3, uakci escreveu:
I wouldn't say it's incomplete. I would just say it failed to meet its goals.
Well, then that makes it a complete failure. :P
And nevertheless the project lives on and the interest in it is non zero despite all its failures which don't seem to bother fluent speakers a lot.
I’m a fluent speaker and I’m bothered.
I mean if you are fluent you can't be bothered or else you are not fluent.
Perhaps we're talking about different senses of the word 'bothered'. I'm not bothered because I speak a dialect which works around these issues. I could use the fossilized official dialect, but I'd risk many, many moments of frustration and encumberment.
If the language works there is no problem.
It doesn't really work that well, so there is a problem.
Unless this is not what one was intending it to work.
I'm not sure I grok this sentence. As I've said before, there's the issue of overengineering. Sure, I can speak the bloated variants of Lojban, but why should I if there are better solutions at reach? (Zantufa, Toaq, Xorban are all examples of great non-overengineered work.)
And since Lojban is 35 years old and itself heavily borrowing from a 65-year-old language, it might be time to *remove* rather than *amend*. One example: solpahi's connective system works just as well as the current one — which may have had to be this way due to YACC's limitations — but offers less bloat. So if we want simplicity and straightforwardness, why don't we choose simplicity and straightforwardness if, again, it's within arm's reach?
— Mỉ Hỏashĩ jí ka.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/1137a1b7-cd6f-4c7c-b2cc-f38e8b4abb3f%40googlegroups.com.