Re: TECH: QUERY on ZI & ZEhA

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

CF> > But this is not a form of expression which I have ever felt the
CF> > need for.
CF>
CF> Even if that is true, there are many grammatical expressions which
CF> will probably never be needed. Is this a reason to give them a
CF> more useful meaning, by introducing a special interpretation rule?
CF>

In your response to Colin above (sorry about the weird quotes):
it has long been my bias that indeed, IF there is something sayable in
Lojban, THEN people will want to assign a meaning to it.  This indeed
has been one of the fun Loglan/Lojban games for a couple of decades now.
The converse is also true: if there is something useful to say and there
is an idle grammatical structure sitting around, people are prone to want
to use it.  I think that this is true in natlangs as well, and may be a
major source of language evolution.

>From a conlang design perspective, at least for one like Lojban, being
efficient in the use of language structures means a smaller set
of words and grammatical structures to memorize.
WE have stretched "bo" a long way, for example.

lojbab