Re: brz, or Plan B revisited (LONG)

Hallo!

R A Brown wrote:

> 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!
No, there are already so many relexes of English and other western
European languages (these are frequent among the IALs as well as
"professional" (i.e., made for films, TV series, etc.) fictional
languages; I am not interested in adding another one.  I'd almost
say we simply toss it.  But the morphology could be recycled.

What regards loglangs, I don't really get what all that mumbo-jumbo
is really about, and I am deeply skeptical of the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis which the loglangers wish to test.

> [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  ;-)
My prime interest in conlanging lies in naturalistic artlangs, see
my Old Albic and Germanech languages, for example.  This, however,
doesn't mean I won't appreciate a well-done engelang.  Our project
could be everything: a loglang, a briefscript, a philosophical
language, or all at once.  Yeah, that would be 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
The sketch of Lojban I have here shows an English-like mixfix order:
X1 P X2 X3 ...  How unelegant.

>       (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.
Yes.  Most typological literature says that SOV is a bit more frequent,
but I'd say that SVO languages have more speakers in total.  There are
quite a few big ones aomng them: Mandarin, English, Spanish, etc.

> For evaluation purposes, I do find the post-fix order easier (too much
> Reverse Polish, no doubt  :)
My personal taste goes more towards a prefix order.  But at any rate
NOT SVO!  That's unelegant, and the notions of "subject" and "object"
doesn't apply well to loglangs anyway.

Greetings,

Jörg.

Replies