Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglan

From: Robert McIvor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 15:10:25 -0500

On Jeudi, déce 5, 2002, at 21:58 US/Eastern, And Rosta wrote:

> Bob McIvor:
>> On Mercredi, déce 4, 2002, at 19:52 US/Eastern, And Rosta wrote:
>>
>>> Bob McIvor:
>>>> Most newcomers to TLI have looked at both languages before deciding
>>>> to go with TLI
>>>
>>> I'm curious as to what their reasons were. Do you know?
>>
>> One commonly expressed reason is the appearance of the written
>> language. Another is the proliferation of cmavo
>> whose semantics and usage, are constantly debated
>
> Is this because fewer people are around to debate Loglan cmavo, or
> because debate happens behind closed doors, or because the semantics
> and usage of Loglan cmavo is more settled? If Loglan is more settled,
> how was that achieved? And do you think that BF should consult
> Loglan solutions for insights?
>
I think it is mainly because Loglan has not tried to do so much with
cmavo as Lojban. To begin with there are far fewer, of which only about
12 vv are attitudinals, there are, I believe, considerably fewer words 
for cmodifying time, place and mood of predicates, which also have 
prepositional
and adverbial use (our PA lexeme), and a number of UI discursives. 
There have been in the past disputes about sets and multiples, 
counterfactuals, and the descriptors lo and loe (loe is 'the typical 
x' and lo 'supposedly the Trobriandian Mr. X', Perhaps
these disputes have died because the principal debaters have died, and 
much
of the rank and file accepted the academy decisions.
I haven't studied Lojban cmavo, but from what I gather from reading 
the list,
many of the arguments deal with cmavo for which we have no equivalent, 
and
would express differently, and, as you will gather from the above, we 
also dispute
some of the same things.

Bob McIvor