At 01:01 PM 9/15/01 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:11:58 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:As for Laadan, it > is clearly too inchoate to be much use as a conlang. Not too inchoate by Lojbab's standards. For Lojbab, the more inchoate the better -- the more inchoate the language is, the more there is for Usage to Decide.Oh, even Lojbab (the one of your rhetoric even) would insist on a grammar and a phonology, neither of which doth Laadan possess in record.
Actually, Laadan was more thoroughly designed than you give it credit for. SHE did write it up in a book, and apparently there has been a small circle of people who got to minimal conversational ability with it.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org