Re: [lojban] Is there any demand for LoCCan3?

[gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

I got your point. Thanks.

But xorxes's ideas looked like an addition to the language or like alternative realisations, not necessarily breaking the baseline.

May be we can reconsider his ideas trying to find other better ways within the baseline to remove the need in learning many cmavo (therefore marking existing connectives as obsolete but still valid), using only existing rules and therefore making learning spoken lojban a bit easier for nintadni ?

On Monday, July 2, 2012 4:07:27 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:

gleki wrote:
> Several recent messages mentioned the need for LoCCan3.
> I wonder is there really any demand for it?
> lojban.org wiki mentions <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/New+LoCCan>nothing
> special.
>
> 1. Fewer cmavo (but you are free to use fewer cmavo in current lojban)
> 2. There should be new cmavo for individuals, sets and masses
> 3. connectives
> 4. anaphoric pronouns
> (sorry, I didn't understand a word in #2,3,4, can you explain it to me
> in plain language?).
> 5. gismu with another number of sumti (but you are free not to use some
> sumti, to use sumtcita etc.)
>
> Anyway, even if so is there any need to break existing language?

The topic has come up intermittently for 25 years.  There has been some
support for directed evolutionary change of Lojban (i.e. "reform", of
the sort xorxes often supports) but not much for redesign.  There has
been a little support for exploring what it would take to have a more
rigorously "logical" language (look through the archives for writings of
And Rosta for more)

If there has been any agreement regarding a possible redesign (and I'm
not sure there has) it has been that any such redesign probably would
not be a real improvement nor be a language that would succeed.  Any
major change would be a traumatic schism of the sort that hit Esperanto
and Ido.

The bottom line is that any improvement would have to offer an
unquestioned benefit worth the very significant effort of relearning (in
a community, many of whom are not especially skilled at learning
languages in the first place), and the loss of the last 25 years worth
of usage and history, all of which would be invalidated.  Consider the
person-years of effort it would take to get as far as we have, which is
great for an artificial language, but really isn't all that far, by the
standards of natural languages.

I have occasionally suggested that any redesign should be done solely by
fluent speakers of Lojban with all discussions conducted in that
language.  Only such collective mastery of Lojban would provide the
insight that would be required to make a better "logical" language.  But
even such an attempt would likely be unsuccessful.

lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier    lojbab@lojban.org    www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/4c-GaQw6WzcJ.
 
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.