Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tertirxu

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:45:25 GMT

la maikl cusku di'e

>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".

I agree with both points. I still complain, because I prefer
the irregularity to creep in through usage and not to be there
arbitrarily from the start and by design. And although I do
believe that future usage will dissolve some of it, the thing
is that I am learning the language now, not in the future... :)

>Awhile back i did suggest using "conjugations" according to the
>number of places (which met with no response).

Yes, I remember it. But I think such classes are too wide to
be of use.

>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...

I'm sure. And I'm not saying the current state is unlearnable.
It is just more difficult than what it could be, and aesthetically
somewhat less appealing.

>Who among us now is ever going to forget the 3 "exceptional animals",
>tigers, humans & sheep?

I remember them from the time I discovered them. I am sure that
there is something in lojbanic mythology that will be found to
justify the anomalies. In this case, because the exceptions are
so few and noticeable, they are not in themselves a big hindrance.
But in the case of plants, for example, there are more exceptional
ones and I don't remember which they are.

co'o mi'e xorxes

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com