Subject: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:43:37 +0000

Xod:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, And Rosta wrote:
[...]
#By the way, concerning your example, I don't know why Jay said he was
#kidding. We use "le broda cu brode" because it has the fewest syllables.
#The language should make the easiest choice a non-SAE one,; 

It doesn't, though; or, it is largely accidental whether or not the shortest
form is SAE-like. More on my views on syllable-count later.

#then we'll see
#if people follow the natural rhythm of the language, or struggle to
#clumsily maintain SAE. 

I don't agree that SAE-style is clumsy.

#In your example the only version with the same count is "da broda je
#brode"; did you not think of it because you too are soaking in SAE?

I didn't think of it because I have never bothered learning the connectivesproperly.

#And if the facilitation of communication conflicts with the Lojbanistic
#avoidance (or drift) from SAE, then dumbing down the discourse to 
#improve communication should be avoided, and readers and listeners 
#should be exercised.

This has to be a matter for individual choice, doesn't it. A lot of Lojbanists
are first and foremost interested in communicating with the language.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep on being the prime defender
of Loglan's Whorfian aims.

--And.