I will not waste any further time on this fruitless thread,
but simply bow out for good with this quote from Okrent
"This is a story of why language refuses to be cured and why
it succeeds, not in spite of, but because of, the very
qualities that the language inventors have tried to engineer
Amen! It should be clear three centuries after Leibniz that natural human
language is not about calculus or logic because natural human thinking
isn't. I wish those who want to bridge that divide their fun, but please
don't pretend it isn't there! Logic has absolutely nothing to do with how
human minds process natural(istic) languages, or it would come easy to all
of us, and thus has nothing to tell us about that process. I suggest
everyone who doubts this study empirical data of human conversation.
And luckily the world of philosophy has more to offer!
This should probably be NCNC though, as it is as conducive to flame wars as
religion, politics and schools of "theoretical linguistics".
Can we have something falsifiable instead, please? ;-)
Den 11 nov 2014 11:31 skrev "R A Brown" <[log in to unmask]>:
> On 11/11/2014 09:10, Patrik Austin wrote:
>> The time parallel stands. It still seems to me that some
>> people have not internalised the difference between
>> logic and the syntax of predicate logic.
>>> [Ray:] I don't see the parallel. Time AIUI is relative,
>>> and bound up with space; it is not constant (it slows
>>> as an object gets closer to the speed of light) and it
>>> can be bent.
>> How do you know all this?
> (Groan) Do you not understand the difference between "as I
> understand it" and "I know"?
>>> [Ray:] I don't deny that Babm seems quite complicated.
>>> But its author claims that its sentences are
>>> unambiguous (which seems to be your preoccupation) and
>>> that "[a]bove all, the grammar is planned most simply
>>> but perfectly."
>> Do you have a better description of the syntax than the
>> usual pdf which only gives translated texts?
> Which is the usual pdf?
> I have several pages of grammar, but Okamoto gives too few
> examples of the different rules IMO.
>> Okay, the grammar is not based on PL. I had a second
>> quick look and I think it might not be possible to have
>> an ambiguous grammar that doesn't make a distinction
>> between adjectives and adverbs, eg. "little beautiful
>> town" – is the town small and beautiful, or does it have
>> little beauty?
> I'm sure the two meanings would be expressed differently.
> But I'm not so sure that spending time wading through his
> grammar is worth it.
>> Okrent has studied the language, but she doesn't seem to
>> take it too seriously.
> That is _not_ what I find in "In the Land of Invented
> Languages" (pages 14, 15 and 16). She says she "became
> particularly interested in the backstory alluded to by
> Fuishiki Okamoto"; and, indeed, the pages I refer to bears
> this this out. She found the man and his story interesting
> and "after reading into the story of Mr Okamoto and his
> beloved Babm, [she] didn't feel much like ridiculing him."
> She quotes sentences from his book; but she makes no comment
> on the grammar or structure of any of the sentences; she
> quotes them merely as examples of his unwitting revelation
> of his own personality. I find _nothing_ in those pages
> that show that Okrent actually studied the language in the
> same way that she studied some of the other languages in the
> book. She gives no original sentences in Babm.
> After talking about Okamoto and Babm, she goes onto to say
> that she respects all the hard work and dedication of
> language inventors, but adds:
> "Of course, my respect was tried by nutty claims made about
> these languages: It can be learned in twenty minutes! ... It
> is logically perfect! It will make you think more clearly!
> So you must co