From jay.kominek@colorado.edu Fri Nov 30 20:15:48 2001
Return-Path: <kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu>
X-Sender: kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Dec 2001 04:15:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 44197 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2001 04:15:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171)
  by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2001 04:15:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ucsub.colorado.edu) (128.138.129.12)
  by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2001 04:15:48 -0000
Received: from ucsub.colorado.edu (kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu [128.138.129.12])
  by ucsub.colorado.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id fB14FlC10802
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 21:15:48 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 21:15:47 -0700 (MST)
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: hypothetical morphologies (was: To clarify...)
In-Reply-To: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMAEDEFBAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0111302105330.6150-100000@ucsub.colorado.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
From: Jay Kominek <jay.kominek@colorado.edu>
X-Yahoo-Profile: jfkominek


On Sat, 1 Dec 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> But if you want a loglan that combines the best ideas from everybody,
> then it's not out there to be found. Of all the projects that set
> out to reform Classical Loglan -- Guaspi, Lojban, Ceqli, Voksigid
> -- none was conceived as an openended design that would change
> whenever ways were found to improve upon it.

(But Andban could be intended as an openended design like that!)

> However, a minority of
> Lojbanists are interested in design issues, so one can still
> discuss purely hypothetical changes to the language.

I don't understand why you want to discuss hypothetical changes on a
flawed language, when nothing stops you from taking Lojban, and making
Andban, which incorporates your idea of the "best ideas from everybody",
and where your discussions nolonger have to be hypothetical.

You don't need a special permit to start making your own constructed
language, you know. :)

Why does a language that is struggling to become real have to be the
testbed for this, when for your purposes, you don't need such a language?

Certainly the conlang list is full of people who you could drag into the
development of Yet Another Endlessly Tinkered With Language.

I just don't get it. :(

- Jay Kominek <jay.kominek@colorado.edu>
Plus =C3=A7a change, plus c'est la m=C3=AAme chose


