Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: ro prenu na ku daplu

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:11:22 +0100

>>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]> 09/24/01 01:37am 
#At 12:34 AM 9/24/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
#>Nick:
#> > One thing: you're insisting on {zei} because you want to sidestep the
#> > potential ambiguity of tanru, or because you don't want to look up theEvil
#> > that is rafsi?
#>
#>I don't want to use tanru. I don't want to look up short rafsi. And I
#>avoid 5-letter rafsi so as to make it easier for others to look up the
#>constituent parts. I also approve of lujvo glue as a matter of principle.
#
#This sounds a bit strange, coming from someone who is arguing that we don't 
#have enough allowance for Zipfean shortening.

The fact that I dislike the rafsi system, which happens to be Lojban's
sole zipfean mechanism, is not incompatible with my thinking there
should be other better zipfean mechanisms.

At this stage I think that type 4 fuhivla and string-abbreviating experimental 
cmavo are our best hope, but if I could rewrite history I would have made 
all gismu CCV and used any C as lujvo glue (CCV-C-CCV).

--And.