[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Rob: > How far will re-Loglanizing Ceqli go? Will it adopt the grammar? (I > hope so, as it doesn't have much of its own.) It is probably easier, for a collaborative enterprise conducted by nonexperts, to take Lojban as a starting point. (I say Lojban rather than Loglan because it is better documented & easier to learn about, with more active practitioners.) Dissatisfaction with points of Lojban grammar can then be formulated as revisions to Lojban grammar. > This would require giving place structures to all the predicates; This is more a property of language in general than Lojban in particular. > Lojban words for forming "tanru" (Lojban's name for combinations of > predicates that would be done with "sa" in Ceqli) would have to act > slightly differently. In some cases there is an explicit word that > connects the predicates, such as "bo" (put between two words to link > them with the highest priority) or "co" (reverse the direction of the > link; "barda lunra" is the same as "lunra co barda" except for the > place structure - each takes the places of the rightmost predicate). > There's also "je", for "and", which is the most explicit way to link > an 'adjective' to a 'noun', yet people always leave it out since the > vague default connection works almost as well. > > Anyway, I'm thinking that these could replace "sa" where they appear. > Then there would be no syllable penalty to use them, and perhaps > people wouldn't be afraid to use them and thus say what they mean. > > But the odd thing about words like these in Lojban is that they have > affixes. "bo" in a tanru becomes the affix -bor- in a compound word. > Other cmavo have affixes too; "mi" (I, me) is -mib-, for example. But > Ceqli has no affixes; the predicate _is_ the affix. So essentially, I > believe that many pivor will need to have equivalents that are fake > predicates, which would mean nothing alone but would be used in > compound words. Perhaps these could be formed by adding q to the > pivor. bo -> boq, go -> goq, etc. This would not be done to all > pivor. "sa" would be a prime example of a pivor which would need no > predicate version. (It would be a no-op.) Adopting anything like the Lojban rafsi system seems unnecessarily complicated; it is rightly one of the most widely disliked features of Lojban. --And.