From: "Rex F. May" <rmay@peakpeak.com>
To: michael helsem <graywyvern@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: yr suggestion on altlangart
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 12:05:42 -0600
michael helsem wrote:
> I forwarded your suggestion to Lojban list & this is one person's
response:
>
> >Since the death of James Cooke Brown, inventor of Loglan, there have
been
> >calls for the reunification of the Loglan and Lojban movements. I think
> >it's a
> >good idea,
> I think so, too...
>
> >and it's also an opportunity to make some changes in
> >the basic structure of the language(s) without reducing the advantages.
> but this wouldn't be a very clever idea.
>
> >What follows
> >is a proposal I've formulated to send out to any interested
> >persons:
> <snip>
> >Redefine word-shape.
> >Complexes will be made by simple juxtaposition
> This would involve far too much work, and given the point reached by
> Lojban so far, I just can't think of it.
>
> >And, rather than derive vocabulary by the traditional method, I
recommend
> >choosing words from languages, beginning with the largest, based on how
> >well they fit the word-shape,
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> <-- how are you
> going to decide that ??? It would, for sure, introduce some cultural
bias
> in the language.
I wasn't clear. What I have in mind is to search for words that fit the
word
shape systematically, beginning with the largest language. For 'big,'
Mandarin 'da' doesn't fit. Nor does the English. Hindi 'bara' wd fit, as
would Spanish 'gran'. So it would come down to a choice between a
2-syllable from a bigger language or a one-syllable from a slightly
smaller one. And, as for cultural bias, I'd assume that the present
method introduces it as well, if we are to learn 'gotso' more easily
because it has 'go' in it. Only way to avoid that bias wd be to have
randomly-generated vocabulary.
>
>
> >as in 'blu' and 'faul' above. A quick look at English, Hindi, and
Spanish
> >show that a _lot_ of vocabulary can be easily derived from just those
three
> >languages.
> But when you take into account the three others (especially chinese)
used
> for building lojban roots, you can see that it is not "easy" any more.
And
> the specs of lojban are against shaping the language according to a
> certain culture range.
>
> >Finally, neither 'loglan' nor 'lojban' would fit the new word-shape, so
I
> >suggest 'Braunlan,' in honor of JCB.
> Please do not take it as an offence to Dr. JCB, but I think this is an
> *extremely* bad idea. Lojban has now reached its public-domain state
> enough not to become one person's moral 'property' by *name*!!
Yes, you're right. Sounds pretty silly, too.
>
>
> I think that it is clear that uniting Loglan and Lojban now should *not*
> start by changing the structures of the langages themselves. Moreover,
> Lojban's langage structure is now officially (and
> practically?) rigidified, while Loglan is not, AFAIK. I am not
completely
> aware of linguistic issues there, but I feel like we can only "add new
> features" to Lojban now, and not remove or change anything.
>
> I may be wrong; but it is sure that I (and I think I am not the only
one)
> would not be going to involve myself further into a language that seems
> likely to change from times to times in order to "adapt" to such or such
> mood of its leaders. Mind that many people to which I told of Lojban
only
> got really interested when they knew that the grammar was now rigid for
> at least 5 years, because that means that the language was thought ready
> enough to be actually used by people.
>
And, indeed, you may be right. Maybe I just like to pick at things.
Best,
Rex F. May
To order my book, click on:
http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm
See my cartoons daily at:
http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp