From rmcivor@macsrule.com Fri Feb 18 12:57:51 2000
X-Digest-Num: 368
Message-ID: <44114.368.2013.959273826@eGroups.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:57:51 -0500
From: "Robert A. McIvor" <rmcivor@macsrule.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Re[2]: Dr. James Cooke Brown

At 2:23 PM -0500 2/18/00, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:
>From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>
>Lojban on the other hand has optional aspectual tenses (like Russian) as
>well as simple tenses, and no doubt Slavik can understand that there can be
>difficulties in translating both perfective and imperfective tenses into
>the simple tenses of the classical language.
>
I, for one, would not be averse to expanding the Loglan tense system.
Additions to Loglan, that conform with the basic principles, as Lojban
claims it
does, would be easy to accept.

>
>Incidentally, the latter discussion points out the one problem with the
>"hoa" and "xo'a" introducers of the other language/dialect - while the two
>words look different in print, in speech they would likely be heard as the
>same word in either version, and thus be ineffective at indicating a change
>in dialect. Indeed, in our alternate orthography originally established to
>make rapprochement based on Lojban more attractive to the TLI Loglan
>community, the alternate orthography form of "xo'a" is exactly "hoa".
>
But is this a problem? It would be considered a 'switch' word,
which when heard by a Lojbanist would prepare same for Loglan, and
vice versa for a Loglanist. When the word was heard again, a new switch
would be expected.

Sincerely,
Robert A. McIvor
(rmcivor@mac.com)