170691Re: Plan B variations
- Mar 3, 2010Hallo!
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:41:52 +0000, R A Brown wrote:
> MorphemeAddict wrote:
> > Has anyone actually used in a conlang the Huffman-like encodings that Plan
> > B
> > illustrates?
> The only one I know of is Jörg's X-1 conlang.
> But as it states on that page "X-1 is still under
> development; consider everything in this article work in
> progress," I'm not sure that it really counts.
X-1 is pretty much dormant; I haven't done anything about it for
several years. What regards conlangs, Old Albic has MUCH higher
priority, and from that I digress into research on prehistoric
European languages, which are a fascinating subject on their own.
(I am currently involved in an endless discussion on the ZBB with
a guy from Barcelona who has his own ideas about those matters.
The main difference between us two, however, is that he is sure
he *knows* what happened even though his evidence is shaky, while
I know that I *don't* know and my ideas are just ideas which call
for more research.)
The FrathWiki page on X-1 is still pretty much up to date, and I
have no intention to abandon the self-segregation scheme as I feel
it is at the core of the language. The idea behind X-1 is "Plan B
done right"; without that self-segregation scheme, it would no
longer be the same project.
> When I was still intending to develop a loglang, I did have
> a page in which I discussed the Huffman-like encodings and
> why I rejected such a scheme. The page is at present
> off-line. I guess with the present interest in Plan B, I
> ought to think about getting it - or a modified version of
> the page - back online.
I dimly remember such a page, but I am not sure. I think it is
worth putting back online.
> But I know of no other conlang that uses it. Basically, it
> seems to me that using Huffman-like encodings is fine for a
> computer and, maybe, extra-terrestrial aliens but not for
> human usable languages.
Indeed. With X-1, I feel that this encoding scheme is something of
a morphological straitjacket. You get severe constraints on morpheme
shape, and as I also use morpheme length as an indicator of valency,
it means that I can have no more than 512 unary predicate words (and
that class includes most common nouns), so I am getting at something
pretty oligosynthetic. That, I feel, is the main reason why I make
so little progress with it.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>