From graywyvern@hotmail.com Sat Jul 29 11:27:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30449 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2000 18:27:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Jul 2000 18:27:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.236.150) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jul 2000 18:27:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 25796 invoked by uid 0); 29 Jul 2000 18:27:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20000729182726.25795.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.176.48.37 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:27:26 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.176.48.37] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tertirxu Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 11:27:26 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "michael helsem" >From: "Jorge Llambias" li'o >If there >was more regularity in place structures I would be confident >of knowing more of them. li'o >The worst part is that there is a certain degree of regularity, On the one hand, i want to say that a little irregularity is good for any artificial language; it gives it "soul"...On the other, in this particular case, i think that future usage will either drop or regularize SOME of the offending "idiosyncrasies". Awhile back i did suggest using "conjugations" according to the number of places (which met with no response). Because there would be so many words in each, this is clearly not a complete solution, but i can imagine textbooks discussing "families" of words within each; with mnemonics, of course, whenever possible. Then the exceptions to absolute regularity would be no more unlearnable than in any natural language... Who among us now is ever going to forget the 3 "exceptional animals", tigers, humans & sheep? ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com