Re: brz reloaded!

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>As it seems more than one possible phonological analysis is possible, it
>>would perhaps be preferable to avoid the term 'phoneme' in the
>>description of the language.
>
> Yes.  After all, the *underlying* units of the structure of brz
> are, as I understand it, the *bit patterns* (which, for example,
> determine the lengths of the morphemes),
I suppose they are. This derives from part of Jeff's 'Problem Definition':
"We will think of a language as an encoding used by two agents to
exchange information via a serial channel, which we may think of as a
bitstream, although we will keep in mind that the agents have human
limitations, and that we will want to support efficient phonetic and
written encodings of the bitstream."

> and the 16 graphemes and
> their pronunciations are merely mappings of those onto something
> more human-friendly.
Yes, as syllables, and in a more neutral way than in PlanB.

Bit, as we know, is a shorthand for 'binary unit', and the binary theme
is fairly noticeable:
- there are four vowels (2^2)
- there are four basic sonorants (2^2)
- there are four basic obstruents (2^2)
- the set of sonorants and the set of obstruents each has a
complementary set, thus giving a total of 8 obstruent symbols (2^3) and
8 obstruent symbols (2^3)
- thus the total set of symbols (graphemes) is 16 (2^4), represented by
16 unique 4-bit patters (quartet or 'nibble').
- but these are realized as 32 distinct syllables (2^5).

>>      When Dirk outlined his ideas on the
>>possible use of the Roman letters as a syllabary in May 1999, he talked
>>in terms of syllables and not of phonemes:
[snip]
>
> Yes.  That makes sense.
[snip]
>>
>>It does, but "no vowel" phonologies always seem rather suspect to me.
>
> Yes.  It does.  If someone was to describe a natlang as having no
> vowel phonemes, I'd be deeply skeptical of that.  Natlangs have vowel
> phonemes.  However, brz is neither a natlang nor a naturalist artlang.
That is true, but I have given brz a pronunciation of 32 perfectly
natural CV syllables. The mere fact that the syllables have the shape CV
(this restriction is quite common in natlangs), must surely mean that
brz has vowels.

BTW, as I see it, although PlanB has 16 graphemes, it has the following
phonemes:
- 8 vowels: /E/, /ej/, /I/, /A/, /aj/, /u/, /ow/, /i/
- 1 semi-vowel: /r/ (the 'Merkan /r/ in 'write')
- 16 cons. /b/, /S/, /d/, /f/, /g/, /T/, /Z/, /k/, /D/, /m/, /n/, /p/,
/s/, /t/, /v/, /z/.

There is no way that I can bring myself to regard, for example, /ej/ and
/S/ as allophones, even if they are both written as |c| !!

[snip]
>>>True.  I'd indeed put the cutoff lower.  How many grammatical
>>>affixes do we need?  Can we get along with 72?
>>
>>I would have thought that 72 was more than adequate. Jeff's idea was to
>>reduce them to a minimum; I would wish to do the same.
>
>
> Yes.  So, everything with three or more letters is a root.  There are
> 512 triliteral roots and 4096 quadrilitral ones.
Yep - it might even be possible to include some (most? all?) two-letter
morphemes as well.

>Thus, most everyday
> notions can be expressed with no more than four graphemes, and the
> thousands of longer roots are only occasionally used for more
> specialized vocabulary.  Most words would indeed be much shorter
> in brz than in English or any other natlangs.
Yes, that's the idea.

[snip]
>>But as it arose out of a paper titled: "Design and Implementation of a
>>Near-optimal Loglan Syntax" it does seem reasonable to do just that:
>>develop brz as a loglang. Besides, I have never attempted a loglang
>>before - it might be rather fun!
>
> I've also never attempted a loglang before.  Perhaps I'll do one
> some day, and brz could be the start of it.
If you wish.

[snip]

> That brought me to an idea, namely to use a system of "variables"
> rather than adjectives and such.  The sentence
>
> "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."
>
> would be expressed by something like
>
> fox x; brown x; quick x; dog y; lazy y; jump.over x y;
>
> In brz, using the roots _str_ `fox', _rlg_ `brown', _rdr_ `quick',
> _stl_ `dog', _rkk_ `lazy', _krbp_ `jump over' and one-letter morphemes
> as variables:
>
> str j rlg j rdr j stl g rkk g krbp j g
>
> or, as the morphology is self-segregating:
>
> strjrlgjrdrjstlgrkkgkrbpjg
>
> Indeed quite concise.  Yeah, that's fun!
Yes, exactly, as the morphology is self-segregating sentences, or at
least clauses, should be written as one 'word'    :)

In more Prologish way, one could think of the sentence as:
jump( fox, over( dog), perfective) :-
	brown( fox), quick(fox),
	lazy( dog).

For those unfamiliar with the syntax:
- parentheses enclose the arguments of the functor;
- in a list of arguments, each argument is separated by comma
- the symbol :- is an implication operator and means 'is implied by';
that is jump( fox, over( dog), perfective) is true if what follows is
true (i.e. the fox was brown and quick, and the dog was lazy.
- the conditions following :- are ANDed together, i.e. the comma means
'and'.

If we arbitrarily assign:
- |j| = comma (and); |g| = 'is implied by'; |l| is the opening
parenthesis; |z| is the closing parenthesis; |d| is the end-of-clause
market (period/full-stop).
- _srb_ `jump', _pz_ 'over', _tl_ 'PERFECTIVE', _str_ `fox', _rlg_
`brown', _rdr_ `quick', _stl_ `dog', _rkk_ `lazy'.

We have:
srblstrjpzlstlzjtlzgrlflstrzjrkklstrzjrkklstlzd

Umm - some improvements come to mind immediately! However, I will not
dwell on those. But there are clearly possibilities.

[snip]
>>
>>The aim of a loglang, as I understand it, is not to fix 'flaws' in
>>natlangs, but to explore _alternative_ modes of expression and
>>communication. By doing this it can give us further insights into the
>>way language and the human mind works.
>
> Well, I have seen much stuff written on loglangs claiming that loglangs
> were more efficient, more precise, less prone to misunderstandings and
> sophistry, etc., than natlangs;
Yes, I have seen claims made on behalf of one loglang which reminds me
too much of the extravagant claims so often made by auxlangs. But I
think we should not attribute this to loglangs as a whole.

Loglangs should have certain 'advantages', such as lack of ambiguity.
But saying that this means loglangs fix the deficiencies of natlangs is
IMO rather like saying aircraft fix the deficiencies of birds. Sure,
aircraft can do some things birds can't and vice_versa. But anyone who
argued that one was more 'perfect' per_se as a flying entity than the
other would be deemed foolish. The same applies IMHO to anyone who
claims that loglangs or natlangs are 'more perfect' than the other.

>however, this is all peripheral to the
> basic idea of a loglang.  Just because some Whorfian-Korzybskian wackos
> have jumped aboard the train doesn't mean that the train is heading
> towards the wrong direction.
Indeed.

[snip]
>>      In any case brz is
>>hardly developed enough to know what it will look/ feel like.
>
> At any rate, it doesn't appeal to my taste for naturalism.
It would be strange indeed if it did   :)

>But that
> is a personal matter.  Well, the future transhumanist sect that
> perhaps will speak it is *evil*; they are in effect Nazis with more
> technology to put into their plan to create the Übermensch.  Their
> language cannot be twisted, misguided and hideous enough!
Umm - that, I think, is difference between us: you need a scenario in
which to have a reason for someone to create the language; I find these
scenarios unnecessary. I would rather develop brz as a loglang for its
own sake and just to see how it goes.

Besides, I don't like my creations to be put to evil purposes  ;)

It seems to me that apart from on add short interjection here and there,
it is overwhelmingly Jörg and me corresponding on this thread. Maybe, at
this stage it could be brought to an end on the list. Then Jörg and I
can take the 'brz basis' and develop it each in our own and in our own
time and see how it goes. It is obvious we have some different ideas; it
will be interesting to see how they develop. Maybe a report back after
the New Year   :)

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Replies