On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:41 AM, la glek= i <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's name=A0

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 = sibling projects.

Let's range them from backward-incompatible to tiny Lojban improve= ments.

(I won't analyse every proposal, though)

1. Backward-incompatible And Rosta's project of CCV-gismu e= qual 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 language

I didn't make such a proposal. I only = mentioned that I like RPN.=A0

There are at least two different areas of improvement f= or Lojban: vocabulary and grammar. The vocabulary is essentially irrelevent= . Any sufficiently concise, flexible, rigorous, and self-segregating (if th= at's a worthwhile feature) will do. The grammar is the important part f= or me, and I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable of grammar and logic to w= ork on this. Distinguishing proposals by which area is affected seems a use= ful thing to do.=A0

stevo

https://groups.goog= le.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/64L-yY8ete8/discussion

Rafybri compress some bridi preserving sumti places between two or m= ore gismu. They are equivalent in meaning to some lujvo but donot require l= earning them by rot.

However, ordinary lujvo retain broken vague ambiguous internal structu= re of tanru with no places.

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

Therefore my choice within the baseline is

* = no lujvo if you can use gismu

* for complex concepts like compute= r terminology, names of plants and animals use lujvo and fu'ivla (you&#= 39;ll have to memorise them by rot anyway)

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

Several recent mess= ages mentioned the need for LoCCan3.
I wonder is there really any demand for it?
lojban.org wiki mentions nothing special.
=

1. Fewer cmavo (but you are free to use fewer cmavo in curre= nt 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 (b= ut you are free not to use some sumti, to use sumtcita etc.)

Anyway, even if so is there any need to break existing langu= age?