From thinkit8@lycos.com Mon Nov 12 23:25:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 13 Nov 2001 07:25:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 2328 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2001 07:25:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Nov 2001 07:25:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n8.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.58) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2001 07:25:32 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: thinkit8@lycos.com Received: from [10.1.10.98] by n8.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Nov 2001 07:25:31 -0000 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 07:25:31 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? Message-ID: <9sqhtb+jqmh@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 537 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.5.121.32 From: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Yahoo-Profile: thinkit41 It's one thing for English to have its quirks, but one competing to replace it should be as regular as possible. Here's an obvious example, with modals. mukti=mu'i mupli=mu'u Why the irregularity? Maybe because someone decided to make a Hindi word thousands of years ago that didn't jive with a Chinese one made even earlier. As far as I'm concerned, all the cmavo, gismu, and rafsi should be redone so they are much more systematic. For true cultural nutrality, make them more or less random within a systematic framework.