Subject: [lojban] Re: More stuff

From: Robin Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:09:35 +0200

Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> At 11:40 PM 12/7/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> 
>>You are likely right about the lack of redundancy, but (a) it is
>>unlikely to be a frequent problem, given that word recognition uses
>>pragmatic as well as phonetic clues,
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it has already been a problem. TLI Loglan had it with 
> their numbers
> (which are ni ne to te fo fe so se vo ve), which Bob Chassell and others 
> had problems with, so I made the Lojban set what it is now - yet people 
> object to re/rei. But we instituted our own redundancy problem with
> se/te/ve/xe, a move that I much regretted later, but which was noticed in 
> 1989 when we first tried to have Lojban conversation. 

I suspect that when rapid, fluent Lojban conversation occurs, 
se/te/ve/xe will just be cognised as "the sumti aren't in the normal 
order" and context will do the rest. I used to do a similar thing when 
reading some of xod's outrageous fi-fie-fo-fum sentences ;-)

robin.tr

-- 
"Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you. And have fun 
doing it."
- Linus Torvalds

Robin Turner
IDMYO,
Bilkent University
Ankara 06533
Turkey

www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin