Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id RAA20932 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:31:50 -0400 Message-Id: <199510252131.RAA20932@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 9EE6EC06 ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:27:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 21:25:05 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Incredible! X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 25 17:31:52 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU > The Loglan morphology was redesigned as late as 1979-82 as the Great > Morphological Revolution, which is when unique assignment of rafsi was > introducved and the current system of making lujvo was invented. > A LOT of alternatives were considered at that point, and I have yet to > see a single idea that meets all crtieria of the current language - you > always seem to need to drop at leats one requirement as "unimportant". It's surprising that none of them could better the eventual system. Jorge's idea is clearly superior. Further, perhaps some of the requirements really were unimportant, or at least not so important that the system had to be as cumbersome and complicated and antimnemonic as it has ended up being. > The one that came closest was Nora's idea of reserving a specific > letter for ends-of-words, but we considered that as a joke even when we > porposed it - it just sounds too weird. Rick Harrison outlined something like that on Conlang once - he devised a system where a syllable could be word-final iff it belonged to a specified list of permitted final syllables - or something along those lines. > Ususally proposals either assume that lujvo will be longer than their > tanru by sticking some kind of glue in, that cmavo do not have to have > a separate word-space from gismu and lujvo (and rafsi), etc. None of > these have seemed to be all that much nicer for what they give up. But > then I LIKE the current system. Here's mine, in brief. There are 2 kinds of syllable, C(@) and CV. @ is schwa and can be omitted between certain consonant pairs. Cmavo are all of form CV or CVCV or CVCVCV, etc. Gismu are all of form C(@)CV (with 17 C and 5 V, that gives 1445 possible gismu; Lojban actually has 7 V phonemes and 22 C phonemes, so that gives 2904 possible gismu). Lujvo are of form C(@)CV-C(@)-C(@)CV-C(@)-C(@)CV (e.g. "kkakkka", "stendra"), where -C(@)- is "glue", but allows many distinct lujvo to be made from the same gismu. The result is greater simplicity and brevity than the present system offers. > So no it has not been frozen for 25 years, just 13. What a shame, then, that the opportunity was wasted, and that 13 years ago was too early for discussion lists like this one. > If you want a constantly evolving langauge, look at JCB's TLI Loglan. > It changes more rapidly than Lojban and yet still hasn't caught up > with us. I haven't figured out how this is possible. It depends on who works on it, I guess. But can I believe you when you say Loglan is backward? All I know about it is its orthography, and as you know I find it much prettier than Lojban's. Oh, but I also know that Lojban list is a million times interestinger than Loglanists. --- And