From araizen@newmail.net Wed May 10 13:10:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23788 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 20:10:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 May 2000 20:10:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.51.26) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 May 2000 20:09:59 -0000 Received: from default ([62.0.167.87]) by out.newmail.net ; Wed, 10 May 2000 23:11:14 +02:00 To: lojban@egroups.com Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:14:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [lojban] re: nazycau gerku and najyzme Reply-to: araizen@newmail.net Priority: normal In-reply-to: <11.3110cb6.263cc12c@aol.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Message-ID: <95802547501@out.newmail.net> From: "Adam Raizen" la pycyn cusku di'e > Is it time for the occasional worry about the lack of redundancy (= the > packedness of some word spaces) in Lojban? I don't really think that Lojban does lack redundancy. I'm not sure what you mean by packedness of word spaces, but I don't think it's true if you mean that basically every word is necessary. Lojban has many words which define grammatical structure unambiguously but nevertheless are rarely needed to understand the sentence. Take for example words like 'va'o', 'ri'a', etc. These are basically always followed by 'le nu', and thus 'le nu' is redundant, except in a strict lojban grammatical definition. In addition, if the language really does lack necessary redundancy somewhere, it has enough machinery that its speakers should have no problem inventing the necessary redundancy. For example, I find that I sometimes add redundant FA's, especially when talking about the third place of 'knows/opines/intuits/etc. x2 about x3', maybe because the redundancy makes it easier to interpret. co'o mi'e adam