WikiDiscuss

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:31:23PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:11:09PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen
> >wrote:
> >>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> >>I agree that the no doi-la-lai-la'i rule is obnoxious,
> >
> >No no no.
> >
> >The obnoxiousness is not the point, the point is that *no-one*
> >has *ever* consistently gotten it right. I used "belas lugosis"
> >the other day, and I *never* *noticed*. I'm not aware of a
> >single serious user of Lojban that has not messed this up at
> >least once.
>
> That is a good point, but not absolutely decisive. People screw up
> on all kinds of things in Lojban that differs from natlangs.

• Semantically*, yes. *Grammatically*, yes. This is the *only*
• syntactic* element that I'm aware of in the *basic* language that

no-one I know has internalized.

Sure, there are syntactic elements of fu'ivla that no-one but Pierre
has internalized, but we're talking about *names*, FFS! If after a
decade there is a basic syntactic rule for a basic function of the
language that no-one gets right, I'd say we have a problem, wouldn't
you?

> >>but not as bad as it would be if we introduced a lot more pauses
> >>(the vast majority of cmevla would be in a name sumti and/or in
> >>a vocative anyway).
> >
> >I *utterly* disagree. I think this is one of the biggest warts
> >on the language. It's worse than SA.
>
> Are you arguing that we should change the language in order to
> increase its *elegance*?

Elegance? I think the language approaches *uselessness* in this
aspect. I think the language is obviously *broken* because of this
rule. Elegance never entered into it.

> >>And I think that Robin would have much more trouble with using
> >>Vy. pro-sumti if he had to do so in speech. Besides, Vy. sumti
> >>are different from cmene under this proposal, in not having a
> >>mandatory pause *in the front*.
> >
> >Yes, that was my *point*. If mandatory pauses in the front are
> >bothering your, use cmene less.
>
> On the contrary, I would like to continue to use cmevla as much as
> I do now. Your proposal would make this more difficult.

I think this is a mistake on your part, but I acknowledge your
preference.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/