From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Nov 13 06:58:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 13 Nov 2001 14:57:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 60135 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2001 14:57:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Nov 2001 14:57:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2001 14:57:59 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:34:13 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:10:07 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:09:41 +0000 To: thinkit8 , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin There are pages on the Wiki in a section called "Wouldn't it have been nice= if" where bad but irrevocable decisions of the past can be noted. --And. >>> 11/13/01 07:25am >>> It's one thing for English to have its quirks, but one competing to=20 replace it should be as regular as possible. Here's an obvious=20 example, with modals. mukti=3Dmu'i mupli=3Dmu'u Why the irregularity? Maybe because someone decided to make a Hindi=20 word thousands of years ago that didn't jive with a Chinese one made=20 even earlier. As far as I'm concerned, all the cmavo, gismu, and rafsi should be=20 redone so they are much more systematic. For true cultural=20 nutrality, make them more or less random within a systematic=20 framework. To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com=20 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=20