Subject: Re: [lojban] word proposal

From: Logical Language Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:10:24 -0500

At 02:21 AM 11/14/01 +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
>ok, i'll explain my example better here. the gismu were
>not "designed" at all. they were more or less randomly made, and
>rafsi more or less randomly attached.

On the contrary, they were designed according to a computer 
algorithm. However, the ability to make distinct rafsi and/or modals was 
not a factor in that algorithm, in part because the gismu were made long 
before the rafsi or modals.

>because of this, we got a lot
>of irregularities. the book specifically mentions that many modals
>are irregular. a simple example: marji is ma'e because manri took
>ma'i. why? simply because marji and manri are both one of the few
>chosen modals, yet both have the same CV'V pattern. modals are one
>case where it's very clear that the cmavo directly corresponds to the
>gismu, so there really should be a regularity there.

When the modals were first created, they were only loosely tied to the 
gismu that they were keyed from. The strict place structure concord that 
now exists came a few years later. At the time of creation, however, we 
had certain meanings in mind, and used the gismu as memory hooks, such that 
similarity was sufficient.

>it's more or
>less a form of conjugation, which natural languages are mocked
>endlessly for their irregularity in.

Of course modals are completely optional in Lojban. You need never use 
them. Use subordinate sentences, or fi'o.

>tenses are another.
>attitudinals are a bit unique, and may or may not need to correspond
>to gismu (although i'd rather have them all regular or all random
>rather than the irregular corresponding words in the refrgram). the
>situation is much worse with rafsi.

It's all a matter of priority. Having identified 3 groups of cmavo that 
you wish were regular, coupled with the other cmavo that ARE regular (the 
digits 1-9, se/te/ve, ti/ta/tu, etc) you quickly find that there isn't 
enough cmavo space to have regularity for everything.

We also found out that certain kinds of regularity are not ideal -se/te/ve 
for example is a set that I would change if I were redoing the language 
because they sound too much alike - we did make them distinct in rafsi, but 
that distinction of course is an "irregularity" to you.

>craig, you say you like the gismu. but the fact is you have to
>change the gismu to redo the rafsi. for example, you could
>standardize on two letter cmavo adding "n" to make rafsi,

You are then limited to around 100 cmavo.

>and adjust
>gismu accordingly so you don't have conflicts (as gismu will have
>their own way of forming rafsi). and you can organize the gismu
>according to frequency of use,

When you design a language, you have no idea what the frequency of use of 
the words will be. We did the initial rafsi assignments in part based on 
usage of corresponding words in making lujvo for TLI Loglan, but we knew 
that was not a particularly accurate basis for frequencies. We tried to 
redo the rafsi in 1993 based on the limited frequency that had been seen, 
but the community decided that it wanted all the most familiar rafsi to be 
held "sacred" and unchanged, and as a result relatively fewer changes were 
made.

>the real point is not the specifics. it's that, if you're trying to
>change things to be better, do it completely. of course other
>languages have irregularities. but lojban is supposed to be better,
>right?

I assume by "better" you mean "xagmau". In which case Lojban shows that 
you are missing 3 key place values:

x1 is better than ?x2 for ?x3 by standard ?x4

Actually Lojban was NOT designed to be "better" for any consistent set of 
x2, x3, and x4.

A lot of x3s THINK it is better than natlangs for them, and sometimes other 
conlangs, based on varying standards.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
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