Re: Cowan on morphology

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

I hate to complain, but could And enlighten us to what he finds baroque
or ghastly about Lojban morphology.  I can'rt think of anything much
simpler than having components that represent each possible root, and
putting them together in the order they would appear in a syntactic
based compound.  You can call it complex to have multiple choices for the
morpheme to represent some roots in some positions, but since you can always
use the longest form, and ALL forms of the root are identical in meaning
and completely interchangeable, the effects of this polymorphism is minimized
in terms of langauge understanding, while allowing for a redundancy that
Lojban like most highly regular conlangs, tends to otherwise lack.

lojbab