Print

Print


Hallo conlangers!

On 22.10.2015 11:21, R A Brown wrote:

> On 22/10/2015 09:53, And Rosta wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Indeed: under the And--Logan definition of loglang, which
>> I think you support, Lojban is only very marginally and
>> tenuously a loglang; it's less distant from being a
>> prototypical loglang than English is, but it is
>> nevertheless very far from the prototypical loglang. I
>> guess the prototypical loglang would be a fairly
>> transparent encoding of standard PL notation (a la Liva)
>> ...
>
> For those who do not know it, an archived version of the
> language may be found here:
> http://www.oocities.org/gataspus/liva.htm#0.1
>

"Liva is constructed mainly for fun: at first, it has not any practical 
aim".  So it is, technically, an *artlang* ;)  But it is a much more 
transparent (and much less "natlangy") loglang than Lojban, and contains 
quite a few interesting ideas.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1