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 http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1