Print

Print


Leonardo Castro, On 11/11/2012 11:50:
> If there are other people interested in "easy-phonology logical
> language", I think that something could be created collectively,
> anyone could create such a group and I would like to take part in
> that.

Why not discuss it on Engelang, given that it's an engelang project? It strikes me as somewhat antisocial to create a new list, in that it imposes on interested parties the obligation to create yet another list subscription and then tends to lead to cross-posting.

> It seems that, for some reason, most people in logical languages and
> "engelang" groups don't think that simple phonology is important.

I expect there are some people who think that the nature of the phonology is a complete irrelevance to the central design problems of a loglang, but for those who are interested in a loglang that the world could plausibly make much use of, simple phonology is important. I gather that by "simple", you mean "small quantity of paradigmatic contrasts". Obviously, the smaller the quantity of paradigmatic contrasts, the greater the length of phonological strings containing the equivalent amount of info: numbers expressed in base 2 require many more digits than numbers expressed in base 256. For a loglang to be eligible for the world to plausibly make much use of it, it should be no less concise than natlangs, yet encode more information per clause (namely, encoding of full predicate--argument structure). Therefore the optimal quantity of paradigmatic contrasts is the smallest number sufficient to make the loglang no less concise than the average natlang.

--And.