Re: brz, or Plan B revisited (LONG)

Hallo!

R A Brown wrote:

> 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?
Yes.

> [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.
I haven't seen any yet, either.  Actually, such an experiment is
not easy to set up; it would mean having someone grow up with the
loglang as L1, which is not exactly practicable ;-)  I think the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can safely be tossed without testing it.

> > 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!
Keep it up, don't ditch it!  But I think I'll spend some thought
on the loglang-cum-briefscript-cum-philosophical language based
on your brz phonology.  And be it as the fictional language of
some wicked future transhumanist sect.  But it will have to take
a back seat - I have too many other projects going.

> [...]
>
> > 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.
That's overstating the fact, but I know what you are getting at.

>       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.
Of course I mean for a loglang.

Greetings,

Jörg.