170760Re: Plan B variations
- Mar 5, 2010Hallo!
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:16:17 +0000, R A Brown wrote:
> Salvete omnes!
> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > Hallo!
> > 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.
> Oh yes, self-segregation is a must in such a project.
For an oligosynthetic language, however, it is sufficient that no
morpheme is a prefix of another morpheme, i.e. there are no strings
A and B that both A and AB are morphemes. If that condition is
fulfilled, the text can be segregated on the basis of a simple list
> I also
> had the idea of "Plan B done right", but quite frankly the
> more I looked into Plan B the more I felt like that little
> kid looking at the "Emperor's new clothes.' :)
Yes. It is neither a loglan nor a loglang, only a relex of English
with a phonology that is both naive and bizarre, and a self-segregation
strategy that is original but unwieldy (and not even done logically,
as 1111 0011 ... counts as "6 consecutive ones" while 1111 1100 ...
does not!) X-1 is meant to be "Plan B done right", but I now feel that
there is no way to do it right at all, and I have quietly abandoned
that project. (I have just removed the "work in progress" remark from
the FrathWiki page, and instead installed a "This project has been
abandoned" sign on the top of it.)
> > I dimly remember such a page, but I am not sure. I think it is
> > worth putting back online.
> I've now done so.
Thank you! It may have only historical relevance to what the project
has transmogrified into, but it definitely interesting to read.
> >> 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),
> Yes, Plan B didn't have the valency problem. Its "case"
> system merely labeled each morpheme for its place in the
> binary tree that the C program would parse.
That's a *weird* morphological device, which perhaps makes the parsing
algorithm simpler, but is not of any use to a human being trying to
understand what is going on, I think.
> As you know, I
> gave up on the loglang idea. In any case, Plan B is not a
> loglang or a loglan, as we now understand these terms. It
> would seem that way back in 1990, the term Loglan was being
> used basically to mean what we now call an engelang; and
> Plan B is certainly an engelang (whether 'optimal' or not is
I don't know how the terms were used 20 years ago. _Loglan_ started
as the name of a particular language, and I think the Loglan Institute
has always used it that way, and would have objected to Prothero's usage
if they had noticed. The Lojbanists use _loglan_ (with a lowercase L)
in the sense of 'a language based on the principles laid down by J. C.
Brown', and have been using it that way since the 1987(?) paper titled
_Lojban: A Realization of Loglan_. No Lojbanist would have ever
recognized Plan B as a 'loglan', I think. At any rate, today we have:
_logical language_: a language based on a system of formal logic
_loglang_: short for _logical language_
_loglan_: a language based on the principles laid down by J. C. Brown
_Loglan_: the original language developed by J. C. Brown
(sometimes called _TLI Loglan_ to distingish it from other
loglans such as Lojban)
Plan B certainly is *none* of these! One could call it an _engelang_
for sure, but "engelang" is a rather hazy notion, I would say, more a
kind of making a language than a well-defined class of languages.
> > so I am getting at something
> > pretty oligosynthetic. That, I feel, is the main reason why I make
> > so little progress with it.
> Having abandoned the ""Plan B done right", my 'experimental
> loglang' has now indeed transmogrified itself into an
> oligosynthetic language ;)
> The main reasons for slow progress on it are:
> - I still find that not all browsers will display the Yì
> Jīng hexagrams;
> - I seem to be busier in retirement than I ever was when
I know what you are talking about (I am too young to retire, but I have
been unemployed for years). The more time you have at your disposal,
the more will the various things you care of expand into it. Having
only a limited amount of time at your disposal causes you to do things
more focusedly, and you actually get *more* done. I have observed that
I seem to achieve more in my spare time during the week, than on weekends.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>