Re: brz, or Plan B revisited (LONG)

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> HallO!
>
> R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>
>>Does Plan B actually fall into the category of what we normally
>>understand by a 'loglang'.
>
>
> I'd say, not.  Jeff might have intended that, but failed.  His language
> is apparently merely a relex of English with an elaborate self-
> segregating morphology.  But it is no more a loglang in the Loglan/
> Lojban sense than English is.
That is how it seems to me also. So what do I do with brz? I certainly
do not want to relexify my own language!

[SELF-SEGREGATION OF MORPHEMES]
>>>Jeff's solution
>>>is elegant and original, but far from the only one.
>>
>>Nor am I convinced it would be very usable in a 'human-friendly' spoken
>>language.
>
>
> No.  It is way too opaque and creates the impression that the
> association
> between initial phoneme and morpheme length is arbitrary.
Yes, I think so.

[snip]
>>>etc., i.e. alternating consonants and vowels beginning and ending
>>>with a consonant.  In this system, all morpheme boundaries are
>>>marked by consonant clusters, and every consonant cluster marks
>>>a morpheme boundary.  For example, _blaraktalmin_ can only be
>>>segmented as b-larak-tal-min.
>>
>>In Piashi _blaraktalmin_ can only be segmented as b-lar-ak-tal-min  :)
>
>
> What are Piashi's self-segregation rules?  (I cannot look them up
> on your web site because of fatal JavaScript errors.)
Depends upon your browser   ;)

But it's the last time a rely on someone else's Javascript! I've removed
it now, and the very simple JS used now should work with all normal
browsers.

I want to handle the navigation menu differently - but that'll have to
wait. At least the present one should work.

[LANGUAGE DESIGN}
>>>>But maybe if I consider postfix or prefix order......
>>>
>>>
>>>Go for it!
>>
>>Tempting - as tho i don't have enough to do already! - but I wonder what
>>the purpose of the lang should be....
>
>
> To have fun designing it ;-)
Yes, that will be so. But I like to have some aim in mind - for me,
problem solving adds to the fun  ;-)
===============================

Jim Henry wrote:
[snip]
 >
 > A prefix-order tree syntax loglang would
 > be roughly equivalent to VSO + prepositional
 > and postfix-order would be SOV + postpositional
 > -- right?

Yep.

 >Or do I have them backwards?

No, you got them the correct way round  :)

Interestingly, Loglan & Lojban are essentially prefix-order (as is
Prolog & LISP, and probably many other conlangs). But in the world's
languages it is much less favored than SVO or SOV. The latter two are
IIRC fairly evenly balanced in popularity.

For evaluation purposes, I do find the post-fix order easier (too much
Reverse Polish, no doubt  :)

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

Reply