Re: Rubin

At 09:40 AM 3/16/99 EST, Edward Heil wrote:
>>From: Gary Shannon <reboot@...>
>>My second project (Rupin) is an attempt to construct an entire language
>>based on the smallest possible grammar.  So far I have it down to eight
>>simple rules.  (I'm putting together the rules and some examples of how
>to
>>apply them using English vocabulary for my web page.  Perhaps in the
>next
>>day or two I'll be able to post a URL.)  The grammar has no such
>concept as
>>"part of speech", which is one reason it can be expressed in so few
>rules.
>>
>
>Sounds a bit like Allnoun (http://world.std.com/~tob/allnoun.faq), a
>language which fascinated me.  I bet I'll find Rubin interesting for the
>same reason.  Please post!
>
It reminded me of Lojban, and to me has the same problem.  I found
Lojban too hard to learn because of all the extra information you
had to attach to each vocabulary entry.  It's not enough to learn
the meaning of the term, but also all the associated arguments.

As Nik Taylor suggested, it would be more natural to have several
fixed patterns, and then you'd only need to learn which pattern a
given word fits into.  I've been working off and on for some time
on a language that does just that, called Saambu.  I read the
recently published Lojban Grammar, and Saambu is intended to be
Lojban after its been spoken as a natural language for a few
generations.

It may be that there are recognizable patterns in the Lojban
arguments, I just never got good enough to recognize them.

-- Terry Donnelly

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711