nothing > special. > > 1. Fewer cmavo (but you are free to use fewer cmavo in current lojban) > 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 to 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? > -- 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/-/XSyeN_zFGqoJ. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. ------=_Part_1646_11137975.1341992479397 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Let's name

Loglan =3D LoCCan 1.0

Lojban =3D = LoCCan 2.0

Lojban after xorlo reform =3D LoCCan 2.1

Preliminary analysis of this topic.

I = can see several proposals on LoCCans including LoCCan > 2.1 and Loccan s= ibling projects.

Let's range them from backward-incompatible to t= iny Lojban improvements.

(I won't analyse every proposal, though)=

1. Backward-incompatible And Rosta's project of C= CV-gismu equal to rafsi and CCVrCCV lujvo where "r" is a buffer consonant. = This lowers signal-to-noise ratio but makes learning rafsi=3Dgismu much eas= ier (no separate forms for gismu/rafsi). This can possibly remove the need = in many modal tags that are actually duplicates and compressed versions of = gismu

2. Backward-incompatible stevo's proposal of syntax that is= always left-grouping. This can also increase the simplicity of the languag= e

3. Backward-compatible la gleki's idea of rafybri packing bridi= into lujvo-like structure retaing internal predicate relations as opposed = to ordinary lujvo (by adding 4 new rafsi for x2...x5 place tags and extensi= vely using {-jve-} for x1 tag). https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/loj= ban/64L-yY8ete8/discussion

4. Backward-compatible xorxes's propos= al on connectives that suggest learning a smaller set of connectives.

5. Backward-compatible massive introduiction of experimental cmavo by = some lojbanists. This might improve language flexibility but make learning = harder. (Compare Loglan=3DLoccan 1.0) that had around 200 cmavo only.

Does Loccan3 have future?

Let's imagine that = And Rosta, stevo and la gleki merged their efforts to produce a new Loccan.= Let's imagine that they succeeded in rewriting the dictionary and the CLL.= What next?

The answer is very short. The project will become via= ble if they have enough resources to adapt the whole lojban corpus (includi= ng lojban.org wiki) and grow the number of students to ~100. Then the schis= m will be successful and I will for sure leave Lojbanistan.

<= /div>

Needless to say that this goal is not likely to be reached in the= nearest future. And I won't accept any half-done work. Still it would be n= ice to read it (just like with Ithkuil).

Comment o= n rafybri.

I have to say a word of rafybri and And Rosta's propos= als.

We can start reading a very old (but still valid) paper by N= ick Nicholas [http://www.lojban.org/files/papers/nsn_semantics_paper] where= he slightly critisizes selecting sumti places for lujvo.

For me such play with sumti places is may be the most terrible draw= back of lojban. And therefore I'm for paying more attention to Deep Gismu s= tructure. I don't like {posydji} but like {ko'a djica lo nu ko'e pons= e ko'i}.

And Rosta's suggests relexing gismu. Stil= l lujvo in eir language will have no internal predicate structure.

Rafybri compress some bridi preserving sumti places betwee= n two or more gismu. They are equivalent in meaning to some lujvo but donot= require learning them by rot.

However, ordinary lujvo retain bro= ken vague ambiguous internal structure of tanru with no places.

I= don't think And Rosta's CCV suggestion is much better than rafybri (rafybr= i can be used immediately as they add new rules but donot destroy any old r= ules). But let's wait until ey presents something.

Therefore my choice within the baseline is

* no lujvo if you can= use gismu

* for complex concepts like computer terminology, name= s of plants and animals use lujvo and fu'ivla (you'll have to memorise them= by rot anyway)

On Monday, July 2, 2012 10:17:57 AM UTC= +4, la gleki wrote:

Several rec= ent messages mentioned the need for LoCCan3.
I wonder is there really a= ny demand for it?
lojban.org wiki mentions nothing special.

1. Few= er cmavo (but you are free to use fewer cmavo in current lojban)
= 2. There should be new cmavo for individuals, sets and masses
3. = connectives
4. anaphoric pronouns
(sorry, I didn't unde= rstand a word in #2,3,4, can you explain it to me in plain language?).
<= /div>
5. gismu with another number of sumti (but you are free not to us= e some sumti, to use sumtcita etc.)

Anyway, even i= f so is there any need to break existing language?

--
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/-/XS= yeN_zFGqoJ.
=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_1646_11137975.1341992479397--