Re: brz, or Plan B revisited (LONG)

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>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
They are, aren't they?

>as well as "professional" (i.e., made for films, TV series, etc.) fictional
> languages; I am not interested in adding another one.
Nor I.

[snip]

> 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.
I share your deep skepticism. As Loglan has now been around for half a
century in one guise or another (Dr James Cooke Brown began developing
the language in 1955), and Lojban has been with us since 1987, I would
have thought there' be some, possibly tentative, results of their
testing the SW hypothesis by now. AFAIK no such results have been published.

[snip]
>>
>>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!
A sort of new, improved Babm? Maybe - I need to think about that. But I
had better not ditch Piashi/~bax in favor of it!

[snip]
>>
>>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.
Yes, I believe I was in error about Lojban. I does seem inelegant for a
loglang.

>
>
>>      (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.
Exactly, and English & Mandarin probably account for about half the
world's population. For that reason Piashi will very probably be SVO also.

>>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,
Presumably you mean for a loglang, not generally for all conlangs and/or
natlangs.

>and the notions of "subject" and "object"
> doesn't apply well to loglangs anyway.
Indeed they do not.

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

Replies