Hallo!

R A Brown wrote:

> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > Hallo!
> >
> > R A Brown wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> >>As it seems more than one possible phonological analysis is possible, it
> >>would perhaps be preferable to avoid the term 'phoneme' in the
> >>description of the language.
> >
> > Yes.  After all, the *underlying* units of the structure of brz
> > are, as I understand it, the *bit patterns* (which, for example,
> > determine the lengths of the morphemes),
> 
> I suppose they are. This derives from part of Jeff's 'Problem Definition':
> "We will think of a language as an encoding used by two agents to
> exchange information via a serial channel, which we may think of as a
> bitstream, although we will keep in mind that the agents have human
> limitations, and that we will want to support efficient phonetic and
> written encodings of the bitstream."

Yes.

> [snip]
> 
> >>
> >>It does, but "no vowel" phonologies always seem rather suspect to me.
> >
> > Yes.  It does.  If someone was to describe a natlang as having no
> > vowel phonemes, I'd be deeply skeptical of that.  Natlangs have vowel
> > phonemes.  However, brz is neither a natlang nor a naturalist artlang.
> 
> That is true, but I have given brz a pronunciation of 32 perfectly
> natural CV syllables. The mere fact that the syllables have the shape CV
> (this restriction is quite common in natlangs), must surely mean that
> brz has vowels.

Yes, you are correct.  The language as it is spoken surely has vowels.
The (surface) phoneme inventory of brz is:

consonants /p/, /t/, /k/, /s/, /m/, /n/, /l/
vowels /E/, /i/, /O/, /u/

> BTW, as I see it, although PlanB has 16 graphemes, it has the following
> phonemes:
> - 8 vowels: /E/, /ej/, /I/, /A/, /aj/, /u/, /ow/, /i/
> - 1 semi-vowel: /r/ (the 'Merkan /r/ in 'write')
> - 16 cons. /b/, /S/, /d/, /f/, /g/, /T/, /Z/, /k/, /D/, /m/, /n/, /p/,
> /s/, /t/, /v/, /z/.
> 
> There is no way that I can bring myself to regard, for example, /ej/ and
> /S/ as allophones, even if they are both written as |c| !!

I agree with you.

> [snip]
> 
> >Thus, most everyday
> > notions can be expressed with no more than four graphemes, and the
> > thousands of longer roots are only occasionally used for more
> > specialized vocabulary.  Most words would indeed be much shorter
> > in brz than in English or any other natlangs.
> 
> Yes, that's the idea.

Exactly.

> [snip]
> 
> > That brought me to an idea, namely to use a system of "variables"
> > rather than adjectives and such.  The sentence
> >
> > "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."
> >
> > would be expressed by something like
> >
> > fox x; brown x; quick x; dog y; lazy y; jump.over x y;
> >
> > In brz, using the roots _str_ `fox', _rlg_ `brown', _rdr_ `quick',
> > _stl_ `dog', _rkk_ `lazy', _krbp_ `jump over' and one-letter morphemes
> > as variables:
> >
> > str j rlg j rdr j stl g rkk g krbp j g
> >
> > or, as the morphology is self-segregating:
> >
> > strjrlgjrdrjstlgrkkgkrbpjg
> >
> > Indeed quite concise.  Yeah, that's fun!
> 
> Yes, exactly, as the morphology is self-segregating sentences, or at
> least clauses, should be written as one 'word'    :)

As an afterthought, I'd set aside one of the single-letter morphemes,
preferably _j_ (0000 binary), as a "scope delimiter" which indicates
that the variables behind it are not coreferential with the same
variables before it.

> In more Prologish way, one could think of the sentence as:
> jump( fox, over( dog), perfective) :-
>         brown( fox), quick(fox),
>         lazy( dog).
> 
> For those unfamiliar with the syntax:
> - parentheses enclose the arguments of the functor;
> - in a list of arguments, each argument is separated by comma
> - the symbol :- is an implication operator and means 'is implied by';
> that is jump( fox, over( dog), perfective) is true if what follows is
> true (i.e. the fox was brown and quick, and the dog was lazy.
> - the conditions following :- are ANDed together, i.e. the comma means
> 'and'.
> 
> If we arbitrarily assign:
> - |j| = comma (and); |g| = 'is implied by'; |l| is the opening
> parenthesis; |z| is the closing parenthesis; |d| is the end-of-clause
> market (period/full-stop).
> - _srb_ `jump', _pz_ 'over', _tl_ 'PERFECTIVE', _str_ `fox', _rlg_
> `brown', _rdr_ `quick', _stl_ `dog', _rkk_ `lazy'.
> 
> We have:
> srblstrjpzlstlzjtlzgrlflstrzjrkklstrzjrkklstlzd

Which isn't much shorter than the English sentence.

> Umm - some improvements come to mind immediately! However, I will not
> dwell on those. But there are clearly possibilities.

Yes.

> [snip]
> >>
> >>The aim of a loglang, as I understand it, is not to fix 'flaws' in
> >>natlangs, but to explore _alternative_ modes of expression and
> >>communication. By doing this it can give us further insights into the
> >>way language and the human mind works.
> >
> > Well, I have seen much stuff written on loglangs claiming that loglangs
> > were more efficient, more precise, less prone to misunderstandings and
> > sophistry, etc., than natlangs;
> 
> Yes, I have seen claims made on behalf of one loglang which reminds me
> too much of the extravagant claims so often made by auxlangs. But I
> think we should not attribute this to loglangs as a whole.
> 
> Loglangs should have certain 'advantages', such as lack of ambiguity.
> But saying that this means loglangs fix the deficiencies of natlangs is
> IMO rather like saying aircraft fix the deficiencies of birds. Sure,
> aircraft can do some things birds can't and vice_versa. But anyone who
> argued that one was more 'perfect' per_se as a flying entity than the
> other would be deemed foolish. The same applies IMHO to anyone who
> claims that loglangs or natlangs are 'more perfect' than the other.

This is indeed the case.  Birds aren't aircraft, and aircraft aren't
birds.  Loglangs aren't natlangs, and natlangs aren't loglangs.

> [snip]
> >>      In any case brz is
> >>hardly developed enough to know what it will look/ feel like.
> >
> > At any rate, it doesn't appeal to my taste for naturalism.
> 
> It would be strange indeed if it did   :)

Yes.

> >But that
> > is a personal matter.  Well, the future transhumanist sect that
> > perhaps will speak it is *evil*; they are in effect Nazis with more
> > technology to put into their plan to create the Übermensch.  Their
> > language cannot be twisted, misguided and hideous enough!
> 
> Umm - that, I think, is difference between us: you need a scenario in
> which to have a reason for someone to create the language; I find these
> scenarios unnecessary. I would rather develop brz as a loglang for its
> own sake and just to see how it goes.

I don't really *need* a scenario to have a reason to create a language
like brz; I merely have a *preference* for that.  The scenario for
Germanech, for example, is sketchy and minimal: a Romance language
survived in a few villages in the western recesses of Germany.
There's no elaborate conculture associated with it; however, what
Germanech indeed has is a fictional history.  Old Albic goes with
much more of a conculture, and could not exist without it.

> Besides, I don't like my creations to be put to evil purposes  ;)

I'll respect this; my ideas for the language of the evil future
transhumanists run into a different direction anyway.  They will
either use a more "typical" speedtalk scheme with a vast phoneme
inventory, and a very clearly misguided one that takes "General
Semantics" into account and is also a "philosophical" language;
or they aren't that creative at all and simply adopt Lojban.

> It seems to me that apart from on add short interjection here and there,
> it is overwhelmingly Jörg and me corresponding on this thread. Maybe, at
> this stage it could be brought to an end on the list. Then Jörg and I
> can take the 'brz basis' and develop it each in our own and in our own
> time and see how it goes. It is obvious we have some different ideas; it
> will be interesting to see how they develop. Maybe a report back after
> the New Year   :)

Yes.  We can close this thread.  The basis is set out; it is now to
each of us to develop it further on one's own.  (Not that you can
expect much development of it on my side soon; I have enough to do
on Old Albic which still needs vocabulary, and then there are more
important things in life than conlanging.)

> PS - I do not guarantee that my version will keep the name _brz_ (for a
> start, it is not a valid brz word   :)

I'll definitely abandon that name when I know how it is called in the
language itself.  _brz_ is indeed not a valid word - _b_ is a
uniliteral morpheme, and the next morpheme, beginning with _r_,
would have to be triliteral, but there is a unit missing after _z_.

Greetings,

Jörg.