170777Re: Plan B variations
- Mar 6, 2010Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!Very true.
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:16:17 +0000, R A Brown wrote:
>> Salvete omnes!
>> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>>> 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.Yep - on http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/Appendix2.html
> 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
> of morphemes.
"Our experimental conlang achieves this [self-segregation of
morphemes] quite simply since each hexagram, i.e. each CV
syllable, is a discrete morpheme (if the language is written
with Roman letters, then each consonant-vowel combination is
a discrete morpheme)."
And on http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/Appendix3.html
"My experimental conlang has only 64 morphemes; none of them
will be used as grammatical affixes. Therefore, the syntax
of Plan B and Plan C (which have the same syntax) cannot be
used for this conlang. The language will be strictly
isolating; but the syntax has yet to be decided."
>> I also...and a morphology that provides suffixes to show the
>> 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!)
precedence of each word its the parse tree.
Certainly it is not a loglan in the sense we now use the
word, nor even a loglang. It would seem that when Jeff
Prothero composed Plan B in 1990, he was using 'Loglan'
really to mean much what we mean by 'engelang' today.
But does 'A near-optimal engelang' have any meaning in
itself? Surely one has to ask: "Optimal for what?" In the
case of Plan B, the answer must be what Jeff himself wrote:
"[i]s simple enough to be parsed by a couple of hundred
lines of straightforward C."
By providing a relex of English with suffixes to show the
precedence of each word in the parse this is, of course,
> X-1 is meant to be "Plan B done right", but I now feel thatI think Jacques Guy spotted that way back in 1992 with his
> there is no way to do it right at all,
'Plan C' ;)
> and I have quietly abandoned...and my effort has transmogrified itself into something
> 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.)
different, which at the moment is still in progress.
>> [...]Thank you. I've also, as you will see from above, put online:
>>> 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.
This likewise has only historical relevance to my present
>> As you know, IExactly.
>> 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)
>> The main reasons for slow progress on it are:Yep - nature sure does abhor a vacuum :)
>> - 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.
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>