Re: TECH: new cmavo "ju'e"

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

>That someone can eventually puzzle out the stuff you do in text on the list pr
>oves nothing much.  I don;t even know if the stuff you write parses or whther
>>I< can understand what you write, but I know it isn;t trivial to do so.

I can read Jorge's text pretty fluently.  I have to stop and puzzle over
almost everyone else's -- And is very experimental, Goran is way ahead of me
on learning rafsi, and even first timers are likely to try tricky things.
Give me a list of anonymous texts and I bet I can pick out Jorges' because
it will be the cleanest.

As for stag+BO:  I really do like it and wish it were part of the language.
I also wish the language would stop changing, because it's more than
adequate as it is and its constant motion is far and away its greatest flaw.
 If stagbo will slow things down, I'm reluctantly glad Lojbab is rejecting
it.  Maybe we could take the matter up again 5 years and a few months from
now...

>We use different connectives for different scopes.  Doing so HELPs the
>listener keep track of what exactly the speaker wants connected.  This is
>MUCH more important in speech than in text, because in text you can reread and
>ponder.  If you have a multipart nested sumti joined to another multipart
>nested sumti, having clearl indicatoirs of scope may make the sentence
>understandable when otherwise it is not.  It is therefore hoped that spoken
>Lojban and written Lojban can be similar in level of complexity.  (You
>know audiovisual isomorphism)

Wow, I hadn't thought of this before -- I had thought the different kinds of
connector were inconveniences bemu'i YACCability.  Interesting.