[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 21/08/2012 21:22:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:10 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
I think you should start by setting out the project's aims. Here are some incompatible aims that have come up in previous discussion:
[..]
3. Design a loglang by means of incremental revisions from Lojban, preserving some sort of backwards compatibility.
I have the impression that your aim is (3). Others, such as Stevo, favour (1). I favour (2), and because of that I think we don't yet know enough to create a successful loglang, tho that doesn't block work on some areas of the grammar, such as the phonology (-- not such an interesting or important matter for loglangs) or the 'predicaticon' (i.e. the lexicon but leaving the morphophonological aspect of lexical entries blank).
I'm still interested in discussing (1), tho. I don't see the point of (3), but I guess I'm still interested is discussing the rationale for it.
I think that the rationale for (3) would be to have a more-or-less
complete language to contemplate as one tinkers. If you start with
from scratch, as with the several systems being shared on this
thread, all you have is the barest of sketches, not anything like a
real language. If you start with a fork of Lojban, and then freely
reform one part of the time, with the only constraint being that at
the end of each reform-stage the language must be in a working and
relatively self-consistent state, then you will have a complete
language each stage of the way. The ultimate product need not be
constrained by any backward compatibility.
OK. But seeing as Lojban is not a speakable logic that is just implemented in a needlessly clunky way, it'd be more help than hindrance. As I said at the outset of the discussions, it's easy to doodle up something better than Lojban; and Xorban is already a better starting point. --And.