Mat McVeagh writes: > Hi - name's Mat, Welcome to Conlang. > I rediscovered conlangs about a week ago from Mark > Rosenfelder's website (zompist.com) 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.