Subject: Re: [lojban] To clarify...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:56:22 EST

In a message dated 11/29/2001 6:09:42 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> the words themselves are 
> unsatisfactory (both in form, and what was chosen to be a gismu). I 
> remain in the lojban community to discuss the grammar as well as 
> offer suggestions into how the words could be better done (not just 
> pointing out why they are unsatisfactory).
> 

Well, it would help it you did make clear just in what ways they are 
unsatisfactory. that would lead almost directly to suggestion about how they 
could be better done. But remember that it is a defining feature of Lojban 
that the gismu are constructed from the phonetic material of the 
corresponding concept expressions in the base languages. This limits the 
possibilities for change to 1) a new choice of languages (but the stats on 
language use have not changed much in the last 10 years), 2) a different 
algorithm (really?) for constructing Lojban words from those languages, 3) a 
different choice of words in various languages for representing the concepts 
(I suspect there is now the collective expertise to do something useful in 
that respect), and 4) choosing different concepts to begin with (maybe more 
semantic primes rather than high frequency -- but complex -- words). In any 
case, clear statements about what the obbjections or the suggestions are are 
much to be preferred (by the hearers and , for practical effectiveness -- 
though this is all moot -- by the presenter).