Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

CHAT: Conlang-friendly linguists

From:John Cowan <jcowan@...>
Date:Thursday, April 26, 2001, 17:45
dirk elzinga wrote:

> So Manaster-Ramer and Sampson are conlang-friendly?
Both of them (at different stages) were quite impressed by Lojban/ Loglan: GS wrote a highly favorable review of the 1969 edition of _Loglan 1_, with favorable comments on conlanging generally: to the effect that if it were possible to construct a complete equivalent for a natlang, it would serve as an excellent probe of acquisition questions, by allowing someone to acquire it; and that even if it turns out not to be possible to construct a complete language, a great deal would be learned in the process. (Can't ask for more than that.) AMR has been heard to say that Lojban could be quite useful in semantic disambiguation (his example was that the Polish term usually translated 'orange' actually covers a much narrower range of variation than the English and Western European words).
> Alexis e-mailed me a month or so ago about some > collaborative work on Uto-Aztecan he was interested in doing
Wow. Did he pick you out of a catalog, or did you know him before? AFAIK his reputation, backed up by the few exchanges I had with him, is for being eminently fair and reasonable, even if he is a connoisseur of odd theories (at the time, at least, the only non-Nostraticist who would say publicly that N. hadn't gotten a fair shake on bogus a priori grounds -- "we just can't reconstruct past 6 KYBP, no how, no way ..."). -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@...> no more / no less || to do / all things || with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein


And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
dirk elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>