LoCCan3 has been for more than 20 years (and before that ther= e was Loglan 2.0) a repository for noting flaws perceived in Lojban (and be= fore that Loglan) and for suggested solutions and other improvements (read = scare quotes where you will). The active content has varied over the = years: no one is hot for adding or dropping phonemes at the moment, for exa= mple. But a few items have endured, usually connected with perceived = problems.

0. A complete redo of the vocabulary= (obviously not back-compatible). The present vocab clusters in some = phonetic spaces and leaves others bare, increasing the likelihood of confus= ion in noisy environments (if Lojban is ever used in one) and making it har= der to find fragments for constructing compounds and related cmavo. T= he only reason for the present word list is the claimed ease of learning, a claim that has ne= ver been tested on even English speakers, let alone Chinese or other langua= ges or relevant multilinguals. The evidence presented is either intui= tive or anecdotal and these are countered by anecdotal difficulties ("false= friends" they used to be called). The revamp includes a revision of = the definitions, which could be done separately (with a bit more compatibil= ity) to make the definitions simpler (generally fewer places, with many pla= ces that occur in many definitions but are rarely used spun off to preposit= ions) and more uniform (all words of the same sort (you are keeping your su= pply of scare quotes running, I hope) would have the same pattern of places= ). A general shake down of the cmavo system is also part of this, sha= rpening definitions, clarifying roles, getting rid of detritus, relieving c= onfusion pressure, etc. For the most part, this is not Lojban at all but the beginnings of a real third generation from Loglan. So= not going to happen until the next charismatic nut-case comes along.

Ubykh has 84 phonemic consonants. As J= . Quijada writes "Ubykh single-word sentence wan-tw-aan - "they give= you to him" ... contains six phonemes, each of which is a separate morphem= e.... If such single-phoneme morphemes are good enough for real-world = natural languages, they=92re good enough for Ithkuil."

Which means that you can never invent a sound system suitable for ever= yone but at the same time even most complex phoneme inventory might be natu= ralistic. In the long run you might end in Piraha-style conlang which has a= round 7 consonants

<= div style=3D"color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:times new roman,n= ew york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
1. Anaphora. The logic= al ideal is a way to refer back to any previously mentioned thing unambiguo= usly and transparently from anywhere in the later discourse. Practica= lly impossible with pronouns, unless every noun is assigned a carrier at bi= rth (and there are problems even with that). Loglan can come remarkab= ly close, but the system barely works with written text and is just not pra= ctical in spoken language beyond very short intervals. The usable Loj= ban techniques, official and not, work as well as the unofficial for the mo= st part but are also of limited scope. The rule "Repetition is also a= naphora" seems the best way to go, though even it has to be used carefully = in some Cataphora (referring to something about to be mentioned= ) is always short scope and can be eased by mentioning it now already.

So no problem in the current Lojban? :)

2. Words for individuals and sets and masses arose out = of the muddle, inherited from Loglan and not much tidied up in CLL, about w= hat exactly 'lo broda' referred to. The old underlying logic had only= individuals, some of which were sets that contained other individuals (or = not). The problem then was to deal with groups that did not behave li= ke sets in set theory but could still go in for individual variables. = For some reason, the notion that ordinary sets could take properties in di= fferent ways from the usual ways for sets did not occur to anyone, so this = remained a problem. Until xorxes found a book about plural reference/= instantiation. According to this, a singular noun could refer to seve= ral things at once and a singular variable could be simultaneously instanti= ated to several things at once. Conceptually differently, but formall= y the same, sets could be Lesniewskian rather than Cantorian, so that getting to= the members of a set is much easier (as is talking about what happens).&nb= sp; Once 'lo broda' was taken to refer to an L-set of brodas, much of the r= est fell into place. Because the theory is also of the part-whole rel= ation, it is sometimes necessary to distinguish the relevant individuals (o= nes with no relevant parts) and also to be able to talk about wholes (L-set= s) in the abstract way that one normally talks about C-sets. This mea= ns that some of the gadri need redefinition (or clarification of the given = definitions). There are also some residual problems with 'lo' left ov= er from Loglan that need sorting out. None of this has much affect on= current or past text.

Clarificat= ion is great. Again sounds quite reasonable within the current language.

3, The original four logical connectives, a= nd their derivatives (often more interesting) and the handful of non-logica= l ones have multiplied sixfold or more. As the language is built, these are needed to preserve the underlying logical= structure, to provide a way to get back to the underlying simple sentences= connected sententially from the given complex sentence involving con= nected terms or predicates or bridi tails or whatever. The quest here= has been to find a simpler way of marking these transformations without ne= eding a whole new vocabulary at each stage. The fact that the reconst= ruction process involved is not proven to be correct also needs some lookin= g at. This may be a minor matter of reinterpreting given forms or it = may take a thorough reworking of the connective parts of the grammar.

.i'a

4. RHE. Though the grammatical right-hand end probl= ems are mainly solved (with the constant danger of misuse leading to your s= aying something quite different from what you meant), the logical ones are = less well dealt with (the "get back to the formula" problem seen in 3). So far, informal conventions seem to be in place and the= re are some cmavo for doing some of these jobs. But they are rarely u= sed and not well described. They do not form clear groups in the cmav= o lists, though grouping them might not be a problem (and the fact that the= y are very different might be an advantage).

<= /div>

Again clarification. That's the job of lojbani= sts, not loccan3-ists.

That is what LoCCan3 actively contains at the moment.

From: gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 4:41 AM
Subject: [lojban] Re: Is there any demand for LoCCa= n3?

Let's discuss it now ))).
After reading the article I want new lan= guage even less.
The monkey took the banana and ate it= .
Pam went home because she felt sick.
The dog ate the bird a= nd it died. (!!!!!!!!!!!)

In each case I= can use {ta} and the context will decide who felt sick (the house or Pam) = and who died (the dog or the bird).

In other cases= vo'a, ko'a can solve the problem.

{sei} can= be problematic for me but I hope CLL 1.1 will explain it.

I can think of no other cases of anap= hora.

And it's still am mystery for me what can be= done with
2. There should be new cmavo for individuals, sets and masse= s
3. new design of connectives

On Monday, July 2, 2012 10:26:12 AM UTC+4, la .lindar. wrote:It's come up a few times.
ht= tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Anaphora_(linguistics)

<= /div>
I think we're working on the rest.

It's = a theoretical next-step language, but I don't see it happening any time soo= n since we're changing up our game.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://= groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ZqkHTaoWCKAJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googl= egroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/= lojban?hl=3Den.

And therefore

> So= not going to happen until the next

> charismatic nu= t-case comes along.

ban such person immediately from this g= roup when [s]he appears! vau zo'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/zI= hMeLYOEpAJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_1263_2956452.1341295431953--