[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote: > on 2/25/04 8:44 AM, Rex May - Baloo at rmay@m... wrote: > > > These damn connectives again. Loglan has: > > > > X e Y and > > X a Y and/or > > X o Y if and only if > > X u Y whether or not > > X noa Y only if (I think) > > X anoi Y if > > > > Now, for the moment we have: > > > > e = kay > > a = key > > o = kaw > > u = some longer word > > noa = bukay > > anoi = kaybu > > > > Or, do we need a combing form for bu? I find the derivation of some of these connectives devilish hard to hold on to. They just will not stick and seem highly counterintuitive when I encounter them...and it's hard for me to ignore the core morphemes that make up the compounds. This was A-OK in Loglan, because the point was to see if a language could engender new thought patterns. But I don't think this is the point of Ceqli. We need those concepts, and others besides, but a strict logician's approach to deriving them yields some head-scratchers that the average guy in Kuala Lumpur or Fort Collins or Toronto will stumble over. > > Also, Loglan has 'forethought connectives' which sort of appeals to me. > http://www.loglan.org/Loglan1/chap3.html#sec3.19 > I think we need a mechanism for this, but I have no idea how frequently one > would need it. Are there any Loglan people out there with an opinion? Yes, we need such mechanism. I actually do talk like JCB's examples in that chapter. But we may be able to press my favourite word, "sa", into service in this role as well. I'll think more on it tonight during halftime and see if I can come up with examples. I don't think Ceqli has to be as far-reachingly logical as Loglan or Lojban; just sensible, easy, and predictable. --Krawn