170692Re: Plan B variations
- Mar 3, 2010I 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.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>wrote:
> 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
> > > 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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>