## Re: Plan B variations

Expand Messages
• ... Not a problem: http://fiziwig.com/conlang/slices.html --gary
Message 1 of 16 , Mar 2, 2010
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:18 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>>
>> Although in that information it mentions that 32 or 64 symbols are
>> possible,
>> but hard to map to the 26 letters of the alphabet,
>
> What I meant is that having 32 or 64 separate, individual symbols is
> difficult using the Roman alphabet.  32 could be managed, of course, using a
> mix of upper and lower case symbols, but many find such a mix unpleasing.
>  But 64 single discrete symbols is not really possible with a 26 letter
> alphabet, even if we double this by using all the upper & lower case
> symbols.

Not a problem: http://fiziwig.com/conlang/slices.html

--gary
• ... [snip] ... Obviously not a problem if you re dealing with slices. Indeed, if you use the slices just as component shapes, you can produce a satisfactory
Message 2 of 16 , Mar 3, 2010
Gary Shannon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:18 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
[snip]
>> What I meant is that having 32 or 64 separate, individual symbols is
>> difficult using the Roman alphabet. 32 could be managed, of course, using a
>> mix of upper and lower case symbols, but many find such a mix unpleasing.
>> But 64 single discrete symbols is not really possible with a 26 letter
>> alphabet, even if we double this by using all the upper & lower case
>> symbols.
>
> Not a problem: http://fiziwig.com/conlang/slices.html

Obviously not a problem if you're dealing with "slices."
Indeed, if you use the slices just as component shapes, you
can produce a satisfactory syllabary in which the onset and
coda can be denoted by specific shapes and just forget about
the Roman alphabet altogether.

I thought it was clear that I was talking about the
complete, unfragmented characters of the modern Roman
alphabet (without additional characters formed by diacritics
or borrowed from Runic, Greek or anywhere else). If one is
restricted to that set of symbol, then there are only 52
characters available - rather short of 64!

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]
• Has anyone actually used in a conlang the Huffman-like encodings that Plan B illustrates?
Message 3 of 16 , Mar 3, 2010
Has anyone actually used in a conlang the Huffman-like encodings that Plan B
illustrates?

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:16 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:

> Gary Shannon wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:18 AM, R A Brown <ray@...>
>> wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
> What I meant is that having 32 or 64 separate, individual symbols is
>>> difficult using the Roman alphabet. 32 could be managed, of course,
>>> using a
>>> mix of upper and lower case symbols, but many find such a mix unpleasing.
>>> But 64 single discrete symbols is not really possible with a 26 letter
>>> alphabet, even if we double this by using all the upper & lower case
>>> symbols.
>>>
>>
>> Not a problem: http://fiziwig.com/conlang/slices.html
>>
>
> Obviously not a problem if you're dealing with "slices." Indeed, if you use
> the slices just as component shapes, you can produce a satisfactory
> syllabary in which the onset and coda can be denoted by specific shapes and
> just forget about the Roman alphabet altogether.
>
> I thought it was clear that I was talking about the complete, unfragmented
> characters of the modern Roman alphabet (without additional characters
> formed by diacritics or borrowed from Runic, Greek or anywhere else). If
> one is restricted to that set of symbol, then there are only 52 characters
> available - rather short of 64!
>
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
> There's none too old to learn.
> [WELSH PROVERB]
>
• ... 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
Message 4 of 16 , Mar 3, 2010
> 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
progress," I'm not sure that it really counts.

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.

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.

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]
• ... A while ago I had a sketchlang like this. I think it was around the same time that I joined this list; I remember folks first reaction being hey, that
Message 5 of 16 , Mar 3, 2010
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:47:22 -0500, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@...> wrote:

>Has anyone actually used in a conlang the Huffman-like encodings that Plan B
>illustrates?

A while ago I had a sketchlang like this. I think it was around the same
time that I joined this list; I remember folks' first reaction being "hey,
that thing has a lot in common with Plan B" (which I didn't know of at the
time).

Mine was underlyingly just a bit string, with no particular chunking (by
contrast Plan B really has four-bit elements). It was designed to be
unambiguously parsable left-to-right without lookahead: this meant the
lexicon was a prefix code and the syntax was Polish notation, with each word
explicitly marked for its set of arguments. Beyond that I just organised
the lexicon taxonomically, none of this indicating the word length by form
which Plan B has.

I also made a few spoken renderings. One gave each string of 7 bits a
pronunciation, systematically but not in a way reflecting the bitstring
well, and perversely ignored word boundary effects -- so this would have
been completely unusable in practice, each word having seven unrelated
allomorphs with a bizarre distribution and ridiculous sandhi effects where
blocks spanned word boundaries. Another was based on 12-bit strings and did
respect word boundaries, but I intentionally assigned dissimilar
pronunciations to similar strings to avoid the "similar words sound
confusable" issue that taxolangs usually have.

Alex
• Hallo! ... 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
Message 6 of 16 , Mar 3, 2010
Hallo!

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 16:41:52 +0000, R A Brown 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
> 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
• 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
Message 7 of 16 , Mar 3, 2010
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:
>
> > > 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
> > 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
>
• Salvete omnes! ... [snip] ... Oh yes, self-segregation is a must in such a project. I also had the idea of Plan B done right , but quite frankly the more I
Message 8 of 16 , Mar 3, 2010
Salvete omnes!

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
[snip]

> 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. 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.' :)

>> 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.

I've now done so.
http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/Appendix2.html

>> 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. 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
debatable).

> 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
working!

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]
• Hallo! ... 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
Message 9 of 16 , Mar 5, 2010
Hallo!

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:16:17 +0000, R A Brown wrote:

> Salvete omnes!
>
> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > Hallo!
> [snip]
>
> > 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
of morphemes.

> 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.
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/Appendix2.html

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
> debatable).

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
> working!

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
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
• ... Very true. ... Yep - on http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/Appendix2.html I write: Our experimental conlang achieves this [self-segregation of morphemes]
Message 10 of 16 , Mar 6, 2010
Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 07:16:17 +0000, R A Brown wrote:
>
>> Salvete omnes!
>>
>> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>>> Hallo!
>> [snip]
>>
>>> 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.

Very true.

>> 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
> of morphemes.

Yep - on http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/Appendix2.html
I write:
"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
I write:
"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
>> 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!)

...and a morphology that provides suffixes to show the
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,
achieved.

> 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,

I think Jacques Guy spotted that way back in 1992 with his
'Plan C' ;)

> 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.)

...and my effort has transmogrified itself into something
different, which at the moment is still in progress.

>> [...]
>>> I dimly remember such a page, but I am not sure. I think it is
>>> worth putting back online.
>> I've now done so.
>> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/Appendix2.html
>
> Thank you! It may have only historical relevance to what the project
> has transmogrified into, but it definitely interesting to read.

Thank you. I've also, as you will see from above, put online:
http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/Appendix2.html

This likewise has only historical relevance to my present
project.

[snip]
>> 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
>> debatable).
>
> 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)

Exactly.

[snip]
>> 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
>> working!
>
> 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.

Yep - nature sure does abhor a vacuum :)

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]
• Hallo! ... It is quite similar with my speedtalk language Quetech (which, however, is not very developed beyond the basic idea yet). That language is
Message 11 of 16 , Mar 6, 2010
Hallo!

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 08:27:41 +0000, R A Brown wrote:

> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> [...]
> > 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.
>
> Yep - on http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/Appendix2.html
> I write:
> "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)."

It is quite similar with my "speedtalk" language Quetech (which,
however, is not very developed beyond the basic idea yet). That
language is oligosynthetic in its core, with each morpheme being
just one phoneme long - which trivially self-segregates. (It also
has an "escape mechanism" (which is why I say that Quetech is
oligosynthetic _in its core_; with the escape mechanism, it is no
longer strictly oligosynthetic), meant primarily for proper names,
and perhaps also for cultural and other terms difficult to periphrase.
this involved encapsulating the borrowed material in glottal stops;
as glottal stops are not used elsewhere, and may not occur in the
encapsulated string, this does not foul up self-segregation.)

> And on http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/Appendix3.html
> I write:
> "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."

Indeed. The Plan B syntax would not work for it. Perhaps a syntax
similar to that of Chinese may do the job.

> > 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!)
>
> ...and a morphology that provides suffixes to show the
> 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.

Apparently.

> 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,
> achieved.

Plan B strikes me as a language designed to make "life" easier for
computers, which is simply upside down: computers are tools to make
life easier for human beings!

> > 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,
>
> I think Jacques Guy spotted that way back in 1992 with his
> 'Plan C' ;)

Yes.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.