[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Aug 8, 2012 9:00 AM, "gleki.arxokuna" <gleki.arxokuna@hidden.email> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In jboske@yahoogroups.com, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> 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:
> >
> > 1. Create a loglang that is the best possible according to our current state of knowledge.
> >
> > 2. Create a loglang that satisfies the key requirement of unambiguously encoding explicit logical forms in a way that is no less concise than the corresponding natlang or Lojban sentences (which are not unambiguous and explicit).
> >
> > 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.
>
> Let's say that by publishing something on (3) I closed that topic.
> So let's discuss (1). Any ideas?
> Just a pre-draft would be fine.
In case it's not obvious, let me point out that discussion of (1) is now happening on the Engelang list, thanks to your impetus and initiative.
--And.