On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:40 AM, steve rice<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 6/7/09, <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Jim Henry wrote:
>> >> About the only languages I've seen that really
>> paid much attention to this
>> >> aspect of language development are Lojban and
>> Loglan. Looking at them, it
>> >> appears the semantics were sorted out first, then
>> the labels were attached.

>> > Surely they aren't the only ones, or even the only
>> well-known ones...?
>> > I can think of a number of others off  the top of
>> my head; Toki Pona
>> > for instance, and Laadan, and many less famous
>> conlangs.

[Laadan is]
> ...... a feminist language put together by Suzette Haden Elgin (I think that's the order--it spells "she") to counter the debilitating effect of patriarchal thinking. I'd as lief learn an auxlang that rooted out all the Jewish and Black content for a racially pure language.

If I understand correctly Ms. Elgin envisioned Laadan or
a better conlang someone else invented along the same
lines being used in stable bilingualism with other languages,
their biases cancelling out.   Also, her stated intent was
not so much to counter patriarchical thinking as to enable
women to say things concisely that take longer to say in
natlangs; in a recent podcast interview she said something
to the effect that observed differences in women's
and men's communicative styles in English led her to think
that women might have more use for a conlang that
grammaticalized evidentiality, validationality, and speech-act
type than men would.

>> Toki Pona is good for the model language it
> The point under consideration, however, was semantics, not general wonderfulness. TP words are pretty well defined, whatever one may think of the language as a whole.

And that is what I was saying about Laadan as well:
not that it was a good auxlang or a wonderful conlang
in general (I think it may be the latter, but I haven't studied
it well enough to have a strong opinion), but that its semantics
are fairly well thought out and not a relex of the creator's
L1.   Dana was saying Loglan and Lojban were the only
conlangs he knew of where the semantics were thought
out as a whole schema rather than naively relexed from
the creator's L1, or hashed out ad-hoc on a word-by-word
basis, or growed-like-Topsy after the speakers took over
from the creator... if I understood him correctly.   And
Laadan as well as Toki Pona is a counterexample;
even if you don't like the semantics of those conlangs,
it's clear that the creators thought out the semantic schemata
of their conlangs in advance rather than making it up
word by word.  And as I said, I could mention others
but those are just the two most famous I know of.

Jim Henry