2015-10-16 15:55 GMT+03:00 R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>:

> On 15/10/2015 17:18, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
>
>> 2015-10-15 18:45 GMT+03:00 R A Brown:
>>
>> [snip]
>
>> Let us accept for the sake of argument what And wrote,
>>> namely: "Natural languages encode [predicate--argument
>>> structure]s of limited complexity and do it
>>> ambiguously."
>>>
>>
> and:
>>>
>>
> "A loglang ... is a language that unambiguously encodes
>>> predicate--argument structure of unlimited
>>> complexity."
>>>
>>
>> Any examples of this ambiguity for one group and
>> unambiguity for the other?
>>
>
> I'll leave it to And to comment on his definitions if he
> wishes.  Ambiguity in natlangs occur all the time; loglangs
> claim to give unambiguous utterances.


Depends on which kind of ambiguity. If a syntactic one then I'm not so sure.


>
>
>
>>> If we accept this, what is your opinion of the
>>> longlangitude of 'Plan B' and of Voksigid?
>>>
>>>
>> Protero's Plan B and Voksigid are simply underformalized.
>> Where is the full description and the dictionary of
>> Voksigid? The page
>> http://viewsoflanguage.host56.com/voksigid/ says
>> nothing.
>>
>
> Sure - but from what has been specified, should they be
> regarded as loglangs?  Their authors clearly thought they
> should.
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Of course, you decide what the term "loglang" means for
>> you. But indeed it's better to formalize the term since
>> even Wikipedia is affected.
>>
>
> Sure - and I want to be as _objective_ as possible.
> ==============================================================
>
> On 15/10/2015 18:17, Logan Kearsley wrote:
>
>> On 15 October 2015 at 09:45, R A Brown wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Personally, while I like And's definition for it's
>> simplicity and clarity, I think it a bit too narrow. I am
>> uncertain just how much it can be broadened without
>> losing all practical meaning, however.
>>
>
>         ;)
>
> [snip]
>
>> and if the finite set of referents is small enough, then
>> most natlangs qualify, which seems wrong, but it still
>> feels like there is a qualitative difference if the set
>> of referents that can be unambiguously distinguished is,
>> say, 50, rather than 3 or 4.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Broadenings that I am more comfortable with would be to
>> say that a loglang is a language which *can* encode
>> arbitrary structure unambiguously (thus allowing that a
>> loglang may also allow ambiguity if you want it, which is
>> probably important for usability), and that a loglang is
>> a language which is *intended* to encode arbitrary
>> structure unambiguously.
>>
>
> I like _intended_; it reflects the intention of the
> author(s).


Yeah, "intended" might be a good building block here.

  But I'm not so happy with _can_; I think if a
> loglang allows permitted ambiguity, IMO it is compromising
> its intention.


But still persists to be a loglang? :)


>   If the only usable loglangs do permit
> ambiguity then it seems to that this is telling us that a
> 'pure' loglang is not usable by humans for ordinary intercourse.


or the notion if "ambiguity"  is not specifed or understood as something
different by different people.

>
>
> Although, it may after all be a good idea to leave intent
>> out of it and just refer to "failed loglangs"
>>
>
I'd be glad to hear that e.g. Lojban is a failed loglang. This nomenclature
doesn't seem fruitful.
I'd rather say that what used to be unique features of a few conlangs (e.g.
formal syntax of Loglan, Lojban, gua\spi to a diffrent degree) is now seems
normal and even expected from new projects.


>
> I'd rather not do this.  To start referring to "failed
> loglangs" seems to me to be entering a similar minefield to
> that of referring to "failed auxlangs."  I've had enough of
> the latter in my time and don't want to enter another
> minefield     ;)
>
> ==========================================================
>
> On 16/10/2015 11:44, Alex Fink wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:18:23 +0300, Gleki Arxokuna
>> wrote:
>>
>> 2015-10-15 18:45 GMT+03:00 R A Brown:
>>>
>>> If we accept this, what is your opinion of the
>>>> longlangitude of 'Plan B' and of Voksigid?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Protero's Plan B and Voksigid are simply
>>> underformalized. Where is the full description and the
>>> dictionary of Voksigid? The page
>>> http://viewsoflanguage.host56.com/voksigid/ says
>>> nothing.
>>>
>>
>> Plan B was explicitly a thought-experiment, wasn't it?
>>
>
> I think it was rather more than that:
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/a%20Near-optimal%20Loglan.pdf
>
> It sets out to design and _implement_ a near-optimal loglang
> syntax.  Does the syntax a loglang syntax?
>
> I'm afraid I have to agree regarding Voksigid, though.
>> Perhaps, for those of us who were around in 1991--92 and
>> watched its development, it was a full loglang aborning.
>> But that "us" excludes me.
>>
>
> It excludes me also  :)
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> The sense I get from that documentation, for what that's
>> worth, is one culturally more in line with auxlangs in
>> the Esperanto tradition.
>>
>
> That's probably because Bruce Gilson was/is primarily
> interested in auxlang - but he would not the reference to
> Esperanto     :-)
>
> He was/is an ardent opponent of Esperanto and, indeed, was
> one of the main contributors to that weekend in January 1996
> that led to the Great Sundering.
>
> But you are right; for all his hostility towards E-o, he did
> like things such as POS marking.  His version of Novial
> wanted to take the language in a more Esperantine direction.
>
> [snip]
>
>> ...  This gives me the impression that Gilson hadn't
>> properly embraced the freedom to choose which sorts of
>> morpheme boundaries should be elevated to word
>> boundaries, but was at some level following a dictum like
>> "if it's one word in SAE, it shall be one word in
>> Voksigid".
>>
>
> Very probably.
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Using a case grammar inspired approach, with explicit
>> role markers, certainly doesn't disqualify a language
>> from loglanghood, though.  Canonical paaS more or less
>> does the same ad absurdum.
>>
>
> Yep.
> =======================================================
>
> Following leads given by Gleki, I came across this
> definition of loglang:
> "... a language in which every utterance is traceable to a
> unique representation in a suitable logic formalism, which
> representation correctly gives the meaning of the utterance,
> and is reached from the linguistic form by automatic formal
> rules (parsing)"
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigenen Kosten denkt,
> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
> [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
> will always interfere with language".
>