LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  May 2004, Week 1

CONLANG May 2004, Week 1

Subject:

Re: what is a loglang?

From:

Ray Brown <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 7 May 2004 06:20:05 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (108 lines)

On Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 06:48 AM, Mark P. Line wrote:

> And Rosta said:
>> Mark Line:
>>> Some things that popped up in a few recent posts made me squirm uneasily
>>> and wonder what it is exactly that we all think a loglang *is*.
>>
>> _Loglang_ is polysemous.
>> In one sense, it is an obsolete synonym for 'engelang'.
>
> Wonder why it isn't 'engilang'...

...to keep it disyllabic like 'conlang', 'artlang', 'auxlang' and 'loglang'
  (not to be confused with 'loglan'  :)

So 'engelang' /'EndZl&N/ - of course English spelling disguises that for
the unwarry - *'enjlang' would give a clearer indication of pronunciation
- but is probably unacceptable to most {sigh}

[snip]
> Actually, my next question would be "Why fetishize propositional and
> predicate logic and its analogues?". It seems like there would be a lot
> less impedance matching to do if a logic were chosen that was more like
> language. (No natlang has variables. FOPC quantification does not map
> straightforwardly onto any identifiable natlang phenomenon. So choose a
> logic that gets by without variables and that does quantification like
> natlangs do.)

Possibly because the more well known ones are Loglan derived - but aren't
there any loglangs modelled on other formalized logics?
================================================================
On Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 08:24 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

[snip]
> In my experience the preoccupation with propositional and
> predicate logic and its analogues in certain linguistic
> is ultimately ancillary to the desire to process natural
> language with computers.

It's true that a programming language like Prolog does give certain
advantages in processes natural languages; but to a limited extent. It is,
  however, IMO as a programmer a poor excuse for adopting it as a model for
a _conlang_. Computers should be tools for human convenience, not machines
that force us to obey their 'will'. I get a bit tired of the unthinking
neo-animism that seems to come over humans when interfacing with these
dumb machines.

>  While I think it would be nice
> to be able to speak to my computer I do think it is a
> bad idea to shoehorn linguistics as a whole into the
> desires of "computational linguistics".

AMEN!! In any case, I often speak to my computer - and generally am
thankful it doesn't answer back. If have a _conversation_, I want it to be
with something intelligent, not a plastic & metal machine cunningly
designed to simulate conversation for the gullible.
=========================================================

On Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 08:25 AM, Mark P. Line wrote:

> william drewery said:
>> I'm not sure I would agree with the way logic is being
>> discussed here
>>   It seems to me logic is more basic than semantics.
>> Any form of intelligence would have exactly the same
>> system of logic we do (Boolean),
>
>
> 1. Logic is an attempt to describe (and usually formalize) the way(s) in
> which humans reason; semantics is an attempt to describe (and usually
> formalize) the way(s) in which humans use language to mean stuff.

Agreed.

> Logic is
> more basic than semantics only if reasoning is more basic than language -
> -
> me, I think they go hand-in-hand.

Yes, I find it too much to believe that there was a time when hominids
were reasoning and that one day it occurred to a hominid that it would be
a good idea to give sound representation to what was going on in her/his
mind. I'm quite the two developments went hand in hand.

> 2. There are all sorts of logics, not just "classical", "standard" or
> "Boolean" logic, many of which some people believe are more useful for
> linguistic semantics than classical logic:

     http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/nonstbib.htm

Yep - I was very skeptical at the statement "Any form of intelligence
would have exactly the same
system of logic we do (Boolean)".  Do we really have such a deep
understanding of our universe that we can categorically state that? I
really wonder if in a few centuries time our descendants will look upon
the logics of early 21st cent. as we view Aristotelian logic today.

I'll take a look at the URL if i get time in College tomorrow.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[log in to unmask]    (home)
[log in to unmask]   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager