tarci (star) + sensi (science) > tarsensi (astronomy)
Not too bad, but three syllables, and the first morpheme is a little fuzzy. Then, to make a shorter compound, we get:
traci (travel) + veslo (container) > racveo (luggage)
Clumsy. You have to learn the word, plus a shortened combining form, or allomorph. But sometimes they don't fit together, so some words have two or three combining forms. Ridiculous.
So I proposed a reworking of the language, using the 26 letters of the alphabet, but splitting them not between consonants and vowels as they're traditionally considered, but rather to redefine ywlmnrq as vowels, and making the rule for a morpheme shape to be nCnV, that is, one or more consonants followed by one or more vowels under the new definition. That way, words that are often used in compounds could be very short, and allomorphs would be unnecessary. It went over like a lead balloon.
So I decided to basically do a language of my own, based on that new morpheme shape, and you have Ceqli. Of course, I made other changes I thought necessary. Loglan makes me think of Gödel's theorem, in that it tries to be perfect, and can't. Too much cutting and pasting to make things fit. I changed the Loglan idea of proper names, the rule for which was just that they must end in a consonant, which means you have to pause after a name to avoid it being interpreted as part of the next word, and created the suffix -zo, which simply means that the suffixed word is to be understood as a proper name.
Go jan. I know. Janzo jan. John knows.
But I'm trying hard not to lose the good parts of Loglan. It has the feature that any sentence can be understood unambiguously, as far as grammar is concerned, and that's a good thing, but it all too often leads to overcomplex sets of little grammar particles. So in Ceqli, you can have unambiguity, but you don't have to. I call it precise Ceqli and terse Ceqli. Precise Ceqli:
Go ciq ke zi danho. I invite that you in-come.
Ciq danho. Invite in-come.
If you're talking to a computer or Martians, or writing laws or legal briefs that must be unambiguous, use the first. Talking normally you use the second.
I first thought of this when, while being enchanted by the unambiguity of Loglan, I was struck by the terseness of languages like Mandarin and informal English. So I thought, why not have both?
Another difference is that Loglan root words were formed by taking the sounds from the words of the eight biggest languages, and statistically getting as many of them into the 5-letter word as possible. A clever, interesting idea. Example:
djano - to know
from three languages, thus:
|2/2||English 'know'||/no/||2/2 X .28 =||.28|
|4/4||Hindi 'jan-na'||/djan/||4/4 X .11 =||.11|
|4/5||Chinese 'j dao'||/djdao/||4/5 X .25 =||.20|
Another is likta, meaning week, formed from
Ceqli just uses the compound cildeygu
"seven day group."
The theory is that such words make it easy for speakers of the eight big languages to learn vocabulary. I have my doubts. I'd rather have some English words like 'grin' (green) or 'cer' (chair) and then learn some foreign words like Russian 'dom' for house or Japanese 'hana' for nose. It's even more 'neutral' than Loglan, because I don't limit myself to the Big Eight.
And now you know.