Re: TECH: pe'a/po'a proposal

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

I don't disagree with you that there exist and have been used lujvo that
are reversed.  My argument is that, when noticed, the reversal should be
corrected, or at least reversing the order should be strongly considered.
Since Nora and I coined blari'o, I know what we INTENDED it to mean.  It
happened to be a nice example that fit the morphology needs of the lesson
at the time, so we used it a lot.

Yes, peoeple will reverse lujvo, create malglico, maldratybangu, etc. lujvo
and other errors in ad hoc and even more carefully thought out usage.  The
question is how tolerant we will be towards these things when noticed.
Given that even such a long established word like le'avla, which actually
is a kind of valsi, and has an omitted "se", one of the things we have always
explicitly DEFINED as a permitted veriation, suggests that, indeed, people
would prefer to catch these and eliminate them wherever possible.

Your observation that this occurs a lot, will at least prompt me to look a
little more closely when compiling your lujvo list into the dictionary - but
then that was why I wanted a whole byunch of volunteers to review that list
before publication - to catch just such reversals and mabla usages before they
are enshrined with some legitimacy in the dictionary.  Alas, while you, Nick ha
have been exemplary in your grinding away at the list, I've seen few comments
if any posted on the multitudinous versions of the list that you've posted
over the last year.

Lojban word-making is not an ideal practice - all we can do is give our
best effort.

lojbab