Leonardo Castro, On 14/11/2012 11:52: > 2012/11/12 And Rosta<[log in to unmask]> >> Leonardo Castro, On 12/11/2012 15:08: >> >>> If understand it well, Lojban allows us to be as generic as we want. I can >>> say "cat is black" without specifying if it "a cat", "the cat", "some >>> cats" >>> or "all cats". So, the more generic sentences can be short in loglangs >>> too. >> >> Yes, but that's uninteresting. > > Well, that's something I like in Lojban, because I think that this is a > feature that allows a conlang to be loglangish and auxlangish > simultaneously, as natlangs differ a lot on their level of mandatory > specificity. The opposite direction is to convey maximum information in > minimum phonemes. Maybe Ithkuil is the best example of this type of > language (I'm not sure because I haven't studied it seriously.) The issue under discussion -- namely the adequacy criterion for a loglang -- is not one of information density in general. It is about encoding the predicate--argument structure (including operator--variable structure) unambiguously and in full without that extra info making the average loglang sentence longer than the average natlang sentence of equivalent information-density, where equivalence of information density is to be measured without including information about the predicate--argument structure. An example of encoding predicate--argument structure: Compare (1) & (2) 1. He wants to go. Vuole andare. 2. He wants that he goes. Vuole che va. (1) unambiguous encodes that the wanter is the goer. (2) doesn't. The loglang must offer a (1)-like solution everywhere arguments have the same value. > 2012/11/13 Alex Fink<[log in to unmask]> >> Fair enough. I don't envy working to meet at once the disparate goals of >> Logic and Auxiliarity! (Though to be honest auxlangery leaves me >> uninterested on the whole, especially where it leaves "be accessible" and >> enters "be accessible to speakers of Mandarin, English, yadda yadda".) > > And yet this is my challenge. I think these are goals of different worlds: > to create an auxloglang to be used inside the nerdosphere and to create a > logauxlang to be easy to be used by anyone. For the latter, I think that > most logical features should be optional. It's true that even a natlang can > be as "logical" as we can by adding specifiers, so the main difference of a > logauxlang would be its regularity and easyness. What's the rationale for having a logauxlang rather than just an auxlang, and how would a logauxlang differ from an auxlang? If you really cared about the log bit, but wanted your easy phonology, one simple solution would be to take a simple loglang such as Xorban (which is in fact currently about the only candidate) and just change its phonology and lexical forms. > I think that it's impossible creating a completely easy phonology for the > whole world. As I have said before, even native English speakers that are > accustomed to complex phonotactics have problem with a simple thing as > pronouncing final /o/ and /e/. Good observation. CV is (IMO) not the basic syllable structure for English for nonschwa vowels. --And.