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

170692Re: Plan B variations

Expand Messages
  • MorphemeAddict
    Mar 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I think I've seen everything now that is commonly available, so I can
      (maybe) work on the idea my own way.
      Thanks to Alex, Ray, and Jörg.

      stevo

      On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>wrote:

      > 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