From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Sep 16 23:12:40 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 17 Sep 2001 06:12:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 2405 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2001 22:54:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 Sep 2001 22:54:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 Sep 2001 22:54:52 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic194.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.194]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8GMsn550275 for ; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:54:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010916185005.00db6bb0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:52:11 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o (fwd) In-Reply-To: <110.5604f3a.28d4e352@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 01:01 PM 9/15/01 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:11:58 PM Central Daylight Time, >a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: >>As for Laadan, it >> > is clearly too inchoate to be much use as a conlang. >> >>Not too inchoate by Lojbab's standards. For Lojbab, the more inchoate the >>better -- the more inchoate the language is, the more there is for Usage >>to Decide. > >Oh, even Lojbab (the one of your rhetoric even) would insist on a grammar >and a phonology, neither of which doth Laadan possess in record. Actually, Laadan was more thoroughly designed than you give it credit for. SHE did write it up in a book, and apparently there has been a small circle of people who got to minimal conversational ability with it. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org