Mat McVeagh writes:

 > Hi - name's Mat,

Welcome to Conlang.

 >                  I rediscovered conlangs about a week ago from Mark
 > Rosenfelder's website ( and have been amazed to find this huge
 > Net community of conlangers.

I know what you mean.  I was astonished that there could be such a
wide area of human activity which I had not come across before in the
years I'd spent on the Internet.

[snip description of many interesting conlang projects]

 > 9) But reviewing the loglangs got me thinking. Loglangs are intended to
 > represent the logical aspects of language and the communication purpose very
 > clearly, sometimes to the exclusion or reduction of everything else.
 > Sometimes it seems as tho loglang proponents believe there is nothing else
 > involved in linguistic expression than conveyance of propositional content,
 > or that they WISH there was, and that's why they are trying to create a
 > language in which logical structure is so prominent. My studies in both
 > Linguistics and Philosophy, as well as esoteric areas, have taught me very
 > clearly that language involves expression of a whole load of other things -
 > emotion? will? bias? experience? spirit? Can you really express emotion thru
 > any loglang for instance, and if you can't, why should we (only) want to use
 > a loglang?

John Cowan's far better qualified to speak on this than I am, but I
know lojban (which, as the more widely known realisation of Loglan, is
perhaps the preeminent loglang of our day) does have an extensive
system for conveying emotion.

[snip further interesting material]

 > I think I am going to enjoy being on this list, :)

I'm sure you will.

Others will doubtless greet you presently, if indeed they haven't,
through the vicissitudes of the listserv, already done so by the time
this mail is sent out.