RE: [lojban] Dr. James Cooke Brown

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@pmail.net>]

From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@pmail.net>

Rex May:
> And Rosta wrote:
>
> > Rex May:
> > > Or, maybe better yet, since total relexification seems to
> > > be in the cards, redo the vocabulary a la my suggestion
> > > of many years ago.  To summarize:
> >
> > Not to say that your suggestions mightn't be improvements, but please
> > let me make clear that my suggestion, now with a suggested implementation
> > from John Cowan, does NOT put relexification on the cards. Those who
> > know me will know that I would LOVE a redesign, but much more important
> > than this, the majority of the Loglan community/communities would not,
> > and moreover have (at least in the Lojban instance) been solemnly
> > promised that there will not be a redesign (except under certain
> > exceptional and stringently defined circumstances). I very much expect
> > that if reunification of Loglandia were linked to redesign, then it
> > would be vetoed in any referendum.
>
> Yes, I realize that.  My thinking is that the two vocabularies are by now
> almost completely different, and if things were to get to the point where
> a compromise language were to be considered, which _would_ entail
> relexification,

It wouldn't. At *most*, there would be a kind of extensive allomorphy with
the eventual outcome settled by usage.

> why not take the opportunity to do away with those
> awkward allomorphs, not to mention the rather monotonous
> CCVCV/CVCCV's.  The great attraction of Loglan for me has always
> been the _grammar_.  Its word-derivation is a completely different
> matter, and can be dispensed with without taking a thing away from
> what I consider the true genius of the language.  Anyhow, it all goes
> back to my article in TL  printed, gad, must be 20 years ago.  If anybody
> is interested and has never seen that article, I'll be glad to elaborate.

I agree. If I were redesigning Loglan the morphology would be the first
thing I'd change. I too posted (to Lojban list) my idea of how it could
best be improved, and, typically, Jorge posted an alternative that I
liked even better. But discussing the ideal loglang is a different debate
from discussing the future of Loglan. Mixing up issues of 'improving'
Loglan with issues of reuniting it will end up stymying (stymieing?)
reunification, not improving Loglan. And if even I take this view, then
it must surely be right!

--And.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds!  Get rates as low as 0.0% 
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.  Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/911/1/_/17627/_/951021626/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com