Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

170691Re: Plan B variations

Expand Messages
  • Jörg Rhiemeier
    Mar 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hallo!

      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.
      > http://wiki.frath.net/X-1
      >
      > 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
      http://www.joerf-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic