Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>Thanks. I was looking again at Jeff's paper last evening. I wonder, in
>>fact, how the advocates of Loglan and Lojban view his paper. Would they
>>consider his ideas as outlines for an near-optimal loglang, I wonder.
>
>
> I'd rather guess that they are too entrenched in their "done deals"
> of loglangs. After all, Loglan still exists side by side with
> Lojban.
Yes, I know. That's not really what I meant. The thing is that both
Loglan & Lojban (one one or two other loglangs, I believe) have a syntax
based on Clausal Form Logic. Jeff's Plan B does not. In fact it seems to
have little to do with formal logic and a good deal more to do with
bit-stream representation and computer parsability.
Does Plan B actually fall into the category of what we normally
understand by a 'loglang'.
[snip]
>>
>>(a) appeals to me very much as this is precisely what I have tried to
>>achieve in the various incarnations of briefscript, BrSc, BrScA, BrScB,
>>~bax etc - self-segregating morphemes. For that very reason, I am
>>looking at this closely.
>
>
> There are many ways to achieve self-segregation.
I know - I've spent some 50 years thinking of solutions :)
> 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.
>A simple
> self-segregation system I once came up with has morphemes of the
> following structures:
>
> C
> CVC
> CVCVC
> CVCVCVC
>
> 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 :)
>If every word has to begin with
> two consonants in a row (i.e., with a C morpheme), word-level
> self-segregation is also achieved.
Yes, there are, as you say, several methods.
[snip]
>>What Jeff seems to me to have done is to provide a way whereby one may
>>analyze an English sentence as a binary tree and then generate an
>>continuous stream of characters (alphabetic, bits or whatever) which
>>both maintains the same word order as English and unambiguously
>>represents that tree. Ingenious - but a wee bit anglocentric, methinks.
>
>
> Yes. Anglocentric is the right word.
>
>
>>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....
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY