response to Cortesi on regular lujvo and glossaries (fwd)

[David Cortesi <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!infmx!godzilla!cortesi>]

Bob LeChevalier straightens me out on the actual usages of lujvo in
conversation -- this is very unfair, pouring the cold water of actual
experience on a nice warm theoretical discussion! ;-)

I accept Bob's point, that it is simply too early to establish
prescriptions for lujvo-formation.  I reserve judgement on whether it
will ever be desirable, but I can accept that I should have a lot more
personal experience with the process of both hearing and speaking
before I attempt to pronounce on the difficulty of same.

Also, I not only accept, but enthusiastically support, this statement:

> 1) Most important:  I WANT people to write Lojban text and to post
> Lojban text, right or wrong.

In the end, I am realizing, this has to be the number one priority at
this stage of Lojban's development.  Anything that promotes/eases
attempts at use, for now, is good.  Given usage now, there will in the
fullness of time be plenty of opportunity for regularization and
correction.  Without the usage, it won't matter either way.

Dave Cortesi