On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:01:55 -0200, Leonardo Castro <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>2012/11/14 Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
>> I named Lojban because that's what you were defaulting to in the Xorban
>> lexis at present and didn't think to generalise it.  But the properties you
>> name are indeed both useful here.  Esperanto might work too;
>Why not Interlingua as well? The have allegedly chosen the more
>international stems by statistical means.

Interlingua would work too.  It must have a pretty large corpus, larger at a guess than Lojban's but smaller than E-o's, though I don't know the figures.  

But to be clear, the only thing this vocabulary generation method would use from Interlingua is what the semantics of its roots are, and how similar in meaning pairs of roots are.  The actual phonological forms of the roots would be discarded, and replaced with forms chosen according only to the purely internal motivation of making words with similar meanings as phonologically far apart as possible to forestall confusion, with no reference to what any natural language does.  
(And that's the way I like it ;-) )

>Then there's the problem of subclauses reusing variables, which I can't
>> entirely wriggle out of even with a good case system: take "the cat ate the
>> rat which ate the grain".  So I guess either we have whole series of
>> secondary cases for conflict avoidance in subclauses, as in
>>     cat(n) & rat(a) & eat(n, a) & grain(a') & eat(a, a') ;
>> or we allow some variables to be reused within subclauses, which on the
>> face of it seems to have the better naturalistic analogy, relative pronouns:
>>     cat(n) & rat(a) & eat(n, a) & relpron(a; [n) & grain(a) & eat(n, a) ] .
>This keep reminding me of object-oriented programming structure.

Could be.  I see the methods in it but not the objects, myself.  Maybe Logan Kearsley or Gary Shannon would have something cleverer to say on this score. 

Ah, and at that,

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:41:46 -0700, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Hmm.... I wonder if there is a correlation between high-context vs.
>low-context culture and syllable complexity / word length, due to a
>need to rely on more mutual contextual information if you can't fit
>enough bits into your speech.

I'd love to see that tested, too.  I have no idea how you measure high- vs. low-contextuality of a culture, though.