Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X3: Extension of JA

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la djan cusku di'e

> I myself proposed this some years ago, but I was persuaded to withdraw it,
> and I think the objection is the same that met my proposal: we are already
> too close to "anything goes" in syntax.

What does this mean? A random string of Lojban words has a very low
chance of being grammatical. In what sense are we close or too close
to anything goes?

> It will become too easy to make
> mistakes with logical connectives (which are a critical part of the
> logical-language core) that are grammatical but don't mean what you want.

Examples? Lojbab said something similar but I don't see how that
would be. Why would such mistakes (if they indeed are so easy to make,
I don't really see how) be more critical with {je} than with {joi}?

> Lojban is altogether too rich in such things already.

Lojban has an excess of stuff in some parts, I agree, but I don't
see the problem here. The change would simplify the system, by virtualluy
reducing the number of selmahos, not complicate it.

Jorge