Re: [lojban] How it should have been. And how it could be.

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Oh, I think there is a lot to save, if you are building a logical language, 
though I would recommend going back to the actual logic language and move from 
that more carefully.  The weird scheme for getting primitives would surely go 
this time around -- it takes a lot of time and is of at best doubted utility. 
Then the movement from sentential connectives to connective between 
subsentential parts has to be rethought to prevent at least some of the 
dubplication. and the question of scopes need another look.  After that, the 
frills can go just about any which way.
Of course, if you want to create a language for Loglan's original purpose, to 
test SWH, Loglan/Lojban was a nonstarter from the get-go when else could it have 
been a nonstarter?) since it is the most SAE language in existence.  So, in this 
case, yes we would have to start from scratch (but don't bother until you have 
actually formulated a meaningful and testable version of SWH, something that has 
not been achieved in 80-odd years).




----- Original Message ----
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, June 24, 2011 11:49:44 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] How it should have been. And how it could be.

Muhammad Nael, On 23/06/2011 11:35:
> I'm very much interested in the language but more so in its idea, I'm
> promoting a custom -not yet existing- form of it; so, my /looooong/
> list of questions is: For all the gurus and regular Lojbanists out
> there, imagine you're back where it all started, but with your
> current experience, how would you like Lojban to be? Or, imagine that
> you're using the current Lojban as a template for creating the
> perfect logical language (as close to that), how would you want it
> look like say, in year 2090? or a bit sooner if that's too far. What
> decisions do you know were made in the very initial years of Lojban
> that you wish weren't? is there any that you wish were /made/? and
> why? If possible give examples. - the change should be enriching
> Lojban's efficiency, making it easier to learn and moving it a step
> closer to being a complete language.
>
> I'll wait for replies, although I may not be able to make a reply myself 
today.

Whether starting from now, or if starting in 1960 but with the benefit of 
hindsight, the hypothetical neo-Lojban should start completely from scratch, 
preserving nothing of current Lojban (-- because everything in current Lojban 
could be drastically improved upon), but of course learning immensely from it -- 
which isn't an answer that is going to help you much with your short story. 
There is no community actively discussing a Neo-Lojban, but if there were, I 
imagine engelang@yahoogroups.com would be the least unsuitable forum for it.

--And.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.