nalgol: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Gleki moved page jbocre: Nalgol to Nalgol without leaving a redirect: Text replace - "jbocre: N" to "N")
m (Text replace - "jbocre: ([A-K])" to "$1")
Line 1: Line 1:
[[pc|pc]]'s definition:
[[pc|pc]]'s definition:


Nalgol is the language "to improve a minor point in [[jbocre: Loglan|Loglan]]" by totally redoing a mass of major design features.  The original one was, I think, Jim Carter's back in the late 70s. ''(It was. --[[jbocre: John Cowan|John Cowan]])''  We haven't had occasion to mention this typical constructed language phenomenon in Lojban much since the base-lining (and before it was part of the process), but recently there seems to have been a spate of ever more aggressive cases which now seem to call the word back into use.  Or should we shift to Nabjol? I think not; the chance to shoot at the languages of the 60s and 70s is still too good to pass by.
Nalgol is the language "to improve a minor point in [[jbocre: Loglan|Loglan]]" by totally redoing a mass of major design features.  The original one was, I think, Jim Carter's back in the late 70s. ''(It was. --[[John Cowan|John Cowan]])''  We haven't had occasion to mention this typical constructed language phenomenon in Lojban much since the base-lining (and before it was part of the process), but recently there seems to have been a spate of ever more aggressive cases which now seem to call the word back into use.  Or should we shift to Nabjol? I think not; the chance to shoot at the languages of the 60s and 70s is still too good to pass by.


''What were Jim Carter's original proposals?''
''What were Jim Carter's original proposals?''

Revision as of 14:56, 23 March 2014

pc's definition:

Nalgol is the language "to improve a minor point in Loglan" by totally redoing a mass of major design features. The original one was, I think, Jim Carter's back in the late 70s. (It was. --John Cowan) We haven't had occasion to mention this typical constructed language phenomenon in Lojban much since the base-lining (and before it was part of the process), but recently there seems to have been a spate of ever more aggressive cases which now seem to call the word back into use. Or should we shift to Nabjol? I think not; the chance to shoot at the languages of the 60s and 70s is still too good to pass by.

What were Jim Carter's original proposals?

  • Way too many to list here: a steady evolution Loglan > Nalgol > Djimbraon > -gzn !gvr > gua\spi.
    • One that was adopted in both Lojban and Loglan is COI/DOI + selbri, which the Founders still sometimes call a "Carter vocative".

Come on, no fair tempting us like that! Give at least a representative sample of some that were rejected.

  • Okay. The elimination of the difference between gismu and rafsi (which entails the elimination of the difference between non-pe'a tanru and lujvo).
    • So far, so good. Maybe I should switch to gua\spi.
      • Shhhhh!
      • Go ahead - Jim needs someone to talk to! (I think he's the only guaspist around)