Re: hypothetical morphologies (was: To clarify...)

[Jay Kominek <jay.kominek@colorado.edu>]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> But if you want a loglan that combines the best ideas from everybody,
> then it's not out there to be found. Of all the projects that set
> out to reform Classical Loglan -- Guaspi, Lojban, Ceqli, Voksigid
> -- none was conceived as an openended design that would change
> whenever ways were found to improve upon it.

(But Andban could be intended as an openended design like that!)

> However, a minority of
> Lojbanists are interested in design issues, so one can still
> discuss purely hypothetical changes to the language.

I don't understand why you want to discuss hypothetical changes on a
flawed language, when nothing stops you from taking Lojban, and making
Andban, which incorporates your idea of the "best ideas from everybody",
and where your discussions nolonger have to be hypothetical.

You don't need a special permit to start making your own constructed
language, you know. :)

Why does a language that is struggling to become real have to be the
testbed for this, when for your purposes, you don't need such a language?

Certainly the conlang list is full of people who you could drag into the
development of Yet Another Endlessly Tinkered With Language.

I just don't get it. :(

- Jay Kominek <jay.kominek@colorado.edu>
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose