[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 2/25/04 10:31 AM, HandyDad at lsulky@hidden.email wrote: > --- 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. Agree. > > 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. > Agree >> >> 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. > Agree again, sort of. Here's what we need, I think. A set of Loglanesque connectives that can do all of the Loglan things, but, to keep both you and me happy, a more _un_obvious derivation. Loglan I has a set of 56 variations of the connectives, combinations of them with fore-no's and after-no's Let's say that the sign of the connective in ceqli is "s", We then have, for redundancy, different vowel/weak combos: snan and (ANd) sor and/or (OR) snil if and only if (oNLY) sweq wether or not (WEther or not) ["q" just to increase redundancy] Then, what in Loglan would be a prefixed 'no' becomes a pseudo-suffix "aw", and what would be the suffixed 'noi' becomes the pseudo-suffix "oy" 'noa,' then, is "soraw", and 'anoi' is "soroy" So, they can be taken apart if we want to, but we don't have to. Reaction? -- Rex F. May (Baloo) Daily cartoon at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp Buy my book at: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/book-GesundheitDummy.htm