[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 09:45:01PM -0700, Rex May - Baloo wrote: > All CV or all CV(V)? You know, Ceqli started as a proposal for relexifying > Loglan, just as you say. If we were to go in that direction, tho, I think > one of L's biggest mistakes was making numbers into little words. All in > all, I think L had too many things classified as grammatical particles. Do > you ever get that feeling? CV(V), I guess. And are there currently any grammatical words in Ceqli that aren't in the CV(V) form? Yes, I do feel Lojban has too many "little words" (cmavo) - but their purpose has somewhat changed. Most of the words aren't even so "little" any more now that two-syllable words with apostrophes count. But the reason is that the cmavo ended up encompassing anything which wasn't a predicate, not just grammatical particles. To be specific, cmavo ended up containing a system for referring to any letter of any alphabet, a system of mathematical notation, hundreds of prepositions (modals and tenses), exclamations, and five different styles of conjunctions. Some of these are necessary in order to have a complete logical language, some are excessive, but mainly, it only goes to show that the little words aren't all particles. However, what's the problem with numbers being little words? Especially with the wonderfully straightforward system of Lojban numbers? I must say I like that better than Ceqli's European-style numbers. -- Rob Speer