On Monday, July 2, 2012 4:07:27 PM UTC+4, lojbab wro= te:

gleki wrote:
> Several recent messages mentioned the need for LoCCan3.
> I wonder is there really any demand for it?
> lojban.org wik= i mentions <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/New+LoCCan>nothing
> special.
>
> 1. Fewer cmavo (but you are free to use fewer cmavo in current loj= ban)
> 2. There should be new cmavo for individuals, sets and masses
> 3. connectives
> 4. anaphoric pronouns
> (sorry, I didn't understand a word in #2,3,4, can you explain it t= o me
> in plain language?).
> 5. gismu with another number of sumti (but you are free not to use= some
> sumti, to use sumtcita etc.)
>
> Anyway, even if so is there any need to break existing language?

The topic has come up intermittently for 25 years. There has been= some=20
support for directed evolutionary change of Lojban (i.e. "reform", of= =20
the sort xorxes often supports) but not much for redesign. There = has=20
been a little support for exploring what it would take to have a more= =20
rigorously "logical" language (look through the archives for writings o= f=20
And Rosta for more)

If there has been any agreement regarding a possible redesign (and I'm= =20
not sure there has) it has been that any such redesign probably would= =20
not be a real improvement nor be a language that would succeed. A= ny=20
major change would be a traumatic schism of the sort that hit Esperanto= =20
and Ido.

The bottom line is that any improvement would have to offer an=20
unquestioned benefit worth the very significant effort of relearning (i= n=20
a community, many of whom are not especially skilled at learning=20
languages in the first place), and the loss of the last 25 years worth= =20
of usage and history, all of which would be invalidated. Consider= the=20
person-years of effort it would take to get as far as we have, which is= =20
great for an artificial language, but really isn't all that far, by the= =20
standards of natural languages.

I have occasionally suggested that any redesign should be done solely b= y=20
fluent speakers of Lojban with all discussions conducted in that=20
language. Only such collective mastery of Lojban would provide th= e=20
insight that would be required to make a better "logical" language. &nb= sp;But=20
even such an attempt would likely be unsuccessful.

lojbab
--=20
Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.