It doesn't really work that well, so there is a problem.
If the thing is speakable then it works.
But do we want to go with the bare minimum? Since we've already got it, why not advance?
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.)
Some person may say: the first Hilbert operator is bi'u, the second one is lo'o'o'o'o'u and then another person would come and say: no, you misread Hilbert so that's how I think it should work and hereby I propose lo'o'o'o'ou
I don't know what is better here and who are the judges.
Time is the perfect judge. The Loglandic adage ‘Usage will decide’ shows this very well: some features surface and some sink to the bottom. But because of things like the Big Freeze and the covert stigmatization of deviations from the official dialect that still lasts, there's no room for that happening. Instead, those who have the good ideas have to restrict themselves to using them in their private circles because any attempt at bringing them into the official language are met with dissent and dismay.
Lojban even if failed elsewhere shines here in it's stability.
Latin, too, is a stable language. But it's been long abandoned, for Romance languages had sprung about. The only reason some people learn Latin is for academic purposes, since it has a great share in the body of scientific works our world has produced.
Do you think Lojban deserves the sort of treatment that languages we already know are quite dead get?
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.
I feel no bloat in it at all but backward incompatibility as a drawback.
Languages change regardless of backward compatibility. No solution is truly future-proof; the only approach that guarantees success is to embrace change. Dismissing change on grounds of there being change in the first place is, in my opinion, hilariously wrong — then if you're so passionate about keeping the language in its current form, why not declare it to be a success and, most importantly, move on to more important things in our lives?
Then we should speak English. Or toki pona (depending on the meaning of the word "simple")
English is far from simple, as you might have learned.
Please don't just derail the conversation like that. We're talking about improving Lojban, not replacing it with Toki Pona or Georgian.
and straightforwardness, why don't we choose simplicity and straightforwardness if, again, it's within arm's reach?
Because there are also aspiring students within arm's reach.
The aspiring students who are within arm's reach don't know what they're setting themselves up for.
If I'd known I'd be joining a community like the one we have which gives the language in its current form this much phrase, I'd never have taken up the offer.
You learned something, good to you.
Please leave the condescending comments on your side of the screen.
Now create a copy of the database and test your crud operations on it so that new learners can have python2 final version now and forever.
Isn't that… like… the opposite of what I want and the exact statement of what you want?
— Mỉ Hỏashī jí ka.