On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:29:34 PM UTC-4, lojbab wrote:
No. CLL 1.1 is NOT intended to sit around for a decade, but to serve as
the basis for discussing the proposals that people want considered. If
those proposals are well-documented, I could imagine CLL 1.1 be replaced
by CLL 2.0 within a couple of years at most.
I wonder how you can say that. Didn't you say much the same thing 12 years ago? And he we are still waiting for a dictionary? It seems like a very unrealistic expectation. Of course, if you're simply planning to rubber stamp 1.1 as 2.0 with a few minor adjustments then I guess it could be true.
> Anything more than a minor proposal after it will be immediately hit
> with the argument that people are relying on the stability of the new
> CLL. By the time the next edition needs to be printed (in 2030?)
We aren't doing a print run of 1500 books. Indeed, CLL 1.1 might be
published only by Print-on-Demand, like the introductory book available
through Lightning Source (though, we may need to make it hardbound
simply because of page count.)
> The bottom line is that ideas like a morphology that doesn't require
> stress to parse, or the use of the final vowel to indicate sumti
> position, or a simplified rafsi system that doesn't require
> memorization, and so on, are simply never going to be given
> consideration.
Probably true. It's also likely that such an effort would not be
considered enough like Loglan/Lojban to warrant calling them a
"derivation". English is after all a derivation of Indo-European, and
more recently Old English, but relatively few people care to learn
anything about those predecessors.
It's all a matter of degree and you can draw the line where you like, of course. One could also argue the same about Lojban vs Loglan since the vocabularies are completely different.
Btw, did you hear that Loglan got rid of `x`?