Hallo conlangers!

On Sunday 18 November 2012 18:18:45 And Rosta wrote:

> Logan Kearsley, On 15/11/2012 16:50:
> [...]
> > A loglang should be based on logic, yes, but it should also be a
> > *language*, and allowing arbitrary variable bindings makes the
> > system seem to me less like a language and more like an obtuse
> > mathematical notation with a weird pronunciation convention; we might
> > as well just make up new names for the symbols and speak straight
> > predicate calculus!
> Well, the loglang challenge is to come up with something that is as
> comprehensive and unambiguous as spoken predicate calculus, while being
> more usable, more ergonomic than that and ideally no less ergonomic than
> natlangs.

Yes.  I feel that Logan strives for a *naturalistic* loglang,
which is of course a contradiction in terms (if I have
misunderstood you, Logan, I apologize).  Loglangs and
naturalistic conlangs are two different kettles of fish, and
attempts at reconciling both in a single conlang tend to fall
in between and end up being neither.  A loglang indeed gets
quite close to a "spoken predicate calculus", otherwise it is
not really a loglang.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
"BÍsel asa …am, a …am atha cvanthal a cvanth atha …amal." - SiM 1:1