[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
selpa'i, On 03/09/2012 00:45:
I can recognize the lojban gismu without vowels (will those stay that way or will you generate new roots?)
The forms are all just provisional placeholders; we haven't discussed forms yet.
This might be a silly question (and probably even not suited to this mailing list), but I'll ask anyway; Will we lose lojbanists to this project? :) I know that you can be part of more than one language community, I myself recently started a Gua\spi "community" (we have an IRC channel and I've gotten a few people to learn it), and of course this won't stop me from enjoying and working on Lojban (I'm currently in the process of translating a larger text for example). So maybe a better way to phrase this question would be: What are the goals of Xorban?Is it mostly just a thought experiment? It's probably too early to tell. Well anyway, hello mailing list!
I think the goal of Xorban is to be an ergonomic loglang, unambiguously encoding logical structure while being as close as possible to matching or bettering natlangs in brevity and ease of use. Beyond that, I don't think there are common goals. I have a rough idea of what I think would be the ideal future for loglangs. Let them fork, change, evolve freely in the quest for the ideal design(s). Adequate loglangs would generally be automatically intertranslatable, so there shouldn't be any pressure to suppress innovation and enforce the hegemony of a single loglang. Once a design is honed, stable, and adequate, it might attract people to teach it and people to evangelize it, and in due course loglangs might come to serve the uses that IMO the world has need of loglangs for.As for Lojban, and whether Lojbanists will switch to Xorban or its ilk, I think that depends why they were Lojbanists in the first place. If they were primarily interested in loglangs, then I would have thought they'd embrace Xorban immediately, but I can't understand why they would be actively involved with Lojban in the first place, since Lojban is so clearly not an adequate loglang and has far too many defects relative to its virtues and has a culture opposed to improvement, tinkering or radical change. So surely most active Lojbanists must be active for some other reason than any mistaken belief that Lojban is an adequate loglang.
--And.