Re: CONLANG: Glosa and Lo[gl/jb]an

[pardoej@lonnds.ml.com (Julian Pardoe LADS LDN X1428)]

> Also, I do not find the so-called "statistical construction of 
> vocabulary fostering neutrality and ease of learning" of Lo[gl/jb]an of any 
> practical ease of learning.  I know Putonghua Chinese and English, so I 
> am supposed to have about 50%(?) ease of learning.  I suppose that is 
> much higher than the average Lo[gl/jb]an target audience.  However, when I 
> was learning it, it was as if I was learning a Martian language which had 
> nothing to do with the worldly language.  Yeah, it is pretty neutral, but 
> hard due to the lack of correlation with any of the language it was 
> supposed to be based upon.  I find, on the other hand, Esperanto or Glosa 
> much easier to learn.

I've always been a bit doubtful about the value of this concept of
"neutrality".  It seems to mean "equally difficult for all" (using
"difficult" in a non-neutral sense).

Somewhere in the Fundamento Zamenhof asks "Would Esperanto be more
international if we said `me^jufokik' rather than `internacia'?"
Of course, he's being a bit unfair here: `me^jdufolka' would be fairer.
He's bringing in Volapuk-style mangling of roots, which isn't the issue.
The language would be more neutral if we said "me^jdufolka" but it
wouldn't be easier!)

In defence of Lo{gl,jb}an's way of doing things it must be pointed out
that the strict rules about the allowable forms for a word ({cvc,ccv}cv)
mean that a less "neutral" way of selecting words would still not produce
many more recognizable words.

(Oh, dammit, I'll write Lojlan!)

What's more if one learns Lojlan roots from a list showing how they
are derived the learning task becomes much easier.  It's easy to
remember "mrenu" if one knows that it's English "men" + Putonghua
"ren".  This is particularly true if the audience is a group like
this one.

I've not studied either Lojlan much but my superficial impression
is that Loglan forms are often more mnemonic than their Lojban counter-
parts.  Why?  Maybe because Loglan grabbed the "best" form, leaving
Lojban with the left-overs.

Still, the exact form of the various gismu and cmavo (roughly meaning-words
and structure-words) doesn't really matter.  "Systematic renaming" is
as possible as it is an a mathematical expression.  What matters is
defining the grammar and how the sense of the whole is derived from the
sense of parts.  In comparison really doesn't matter if I say "mi clivu
le mrenu", "mi prami le nanmu" or "erk bazoink kupa konkpaa" (though it
might be more fun if we said the latter).

-- jP --