[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Let's name 
Loglan = LoCCan 1.0
Lojban = LoCCan 2.0
Lojban after xorlo reform = LoCCan 2.1

Preliminary analysis of this topic.

I can see several proposals on LoCCans including LoCCan > 2.1 and Loccan sibling projects.
Let's range them from backward-incompatible to tiny Lojban improvements.
(I won't analyse every proposal, though)

1. Backward-incompatible And Rosta's project of CCV-gismu equal to rafsi and CCVrCCV lujvo where "r" is a buffer consonant. This lowers signal-to-noise ratio but makes learning rafsi=gismu much easier (no separate forms for gismu/rafsi). This can possibly remove the need in many modal tags that are actually duplicates and compressed versions of gismu
2. Backward-incompatible stevo's proposal of syntax that is always left-grouping. This can also increase the simplicity of the language
3. Backward-compatible la gleki's idea of rafybri packing bridi into lujvo-like structure retaing internal predicate relations as opposed to ordinary lujvo (by adding 4 new rafsi for x2...x5 place tags and extensively using {-jve-} for x1 tag). https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/64L-yY8ete8/discussion
4. Backward-compatible xorxes's proposal on connectives that suggest learning a smaller set of connectives.
5. Backward-compatible massive introduiction of experimental cmavo by some lojbanists. This might improve language flexibility but make learning harder. (Compare Loglan=Loccan 1.0) that had around 200 cmavo only.

Does Loccan3 have future?
Let's imagine that And Rosta, stevo and la gleki merged their efforts to produce a new Loccan. Let's imagine that they succeeded in rewriting the dictionary and the CLL. What next?
The answer is very short. The project will become viable if they have enough resources to adapt the whole lojban corpus (including lojban.org wiki) and grow the number of students to ~100. Then the schism will be successful and I will for sure leave Lojbanistan.

Needless to say that this goal is not likely to be reached in the nearest future. And I won't accept any half-done work. Still it would be nice to read it (just like with Ithkuil).

Comment on rafybri.
I have to say a word of rafybri and And Rosta's proposals.
We can start reading a very old (but still valid) paper by Nick Nicholas [http://www.lojban.org/files/papers/nsn_semantics_paper] where he slightly critisizes selecting sumti places for lujvo.

For me such play with sumti places is may be the most terrible drawback of lojban. And therefore I'm for paying more attention to Deep Gismu structure. I don't like {posydji}  but like {ko'a djica lo nu ko'e ponse ko'i}.

And Rosta's suggests relexing gismu. Still lujvo in eir language will have no internal predicate structure.

Rafybri compress some bridi preserving sumti places between two or more gismu. They are equivalent in meaning to some lujvo but donot require learning them by rot.
However, ordinary lujvo retain broken vague ambiguous internal structure of tanru with no places.
I don't think And Rosta's CCV suggestion is much better than rafybri (rafybri can be used immediately as they add new rules but donot destroy any old rules). But let's wait until ey presents something.

Therefore my choice within the baseline is
* no lujvo if you can use gismu
* for complex concepts like computer terminology, names of plants and animals use lujvo and fu'ivla (you'll have to memorise them by rot anyway)

On Monday, July 2, 2012 10:17:57 AM UTC+4, la gleki wrote:
Several recent messages mentioned the need for LoCCan3.
I wonder is there really any demand for it?
lojban.org wiki mentions 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?

--
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/-/XSyeN_zFGqoJ.
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.