Philippe Caquant <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> IMO, "I think, therefore I am" is nearly the same as
> "IF (A < B AND B < C) THEN (A < C)"
> So "(A < B AND B < C)" is not the CAUSE that (A < C);

Ok, now I understand.

> it is just a basical law of logic. If you deny it,
> then you cannot build any logic any more.

But could the original sentence not also mean that it causes being?
What would being without thinking for a human be?  Would it be being?
I think it's more than just an implication.

It's hard to keep the sentence underspecified if you have too many
cases... :-)

> no event there. So there is no causative neither. Simple, isn't it ?
> ;-)

Not at all. :-)

> I typed too fast. I meant "a language is very well,
> but WHAT shall we talk about ?", of course.

Ah, ok.

You are absolutely right.  A natural language is semantics for most of
it.  If you are very interested in the system of thought a language
expresses, then you'd probably think about the semantics of a language
first.  Or maybe even -- only.  I can imagine that many people are not
at all interested in the plain structure but only in the semantical

However, as I said, I construct languages the other way around since I
like structure so much.  I'm not really interested much about the
underlying system of thought, because I would find myself conculturing
instead of conlanging, and I'm not seriously interested in conculture.
A few bits of funny thought are very nice about conculturing, but I
don't take it seriously for myself.

I hope this makes my view point clear and excuses any missing
interpretation chapter. :-) Some basic things will follow, but
probably not the deep explanations about semantics that you are
looking for.  The way I construct the words and compositions and
classes and concepts, it will most certainly seem very arbitrary to

Also, my language is not meant to serve a particular purpose.  I want
a bit of chaos here and a bit of structure there. :-) Fun, that's the
main goal. :-)

> So the language should be built according to the referent world you
> want to use it for.

It 'should', if you are interested in semantical linkage to a
reference system.  I would define it differently for me: I language
should be constructed to have a nice structure. :-)

> And so it is in natlangs.

Yes, of course.  But the culture that has formed it usually exists.
This is different for conlangs, they probably need a conculture to
have all the things you want.

> If they are ghosts, spirits or gods in you referent world,

Probably not. :-))))

Ooops, I excluded something from my conculture... :-)))

> syntactically (if I got it all right). But I wasn't
> convinced by your example: she works at a book. I
> would perhaps agree if it you had said:
> "To sing" = semantic valence = 1 (mandatory), +1
> (optionnally). Ex: I sing # I sing a ballad.

Ah, yes, you are right.  I will have to fix that.  Thanks!