Print

Print


2012/11/19 Jrg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>:
>> On 18 November 2012 13:40, Jrg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Hallo conlangers!
>> > [...]
>> > 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.
>>
>> "Naturalistic loglang" is, perhaps, an accurate explanation, but a
>> misleading one. And explained it well, but I'll try to put the idea in
>> my own terms: natural languages do not unambiguously encode logic,
>> thus a logical language will not be naturalistic.
>
> Indeed not!  That was my point.

To me, what is more important than knowing if a certain features
occurs in natlangs is knowing if people can adjust their syntaxometers
to use those features fluently.

I would never know that people could naturally speak such a thing as
French "ne...pas" (kind of mandatory negation brackets) if I hadn't
studied French. Well, "no...no" happens in Portuguese, but the
second "no" is optional and apparently added a posteriori to
emphasize the negation. OK, I know that's exactly how the "ne...pas"
arose, but now they are just negation brackets

So, maybe we could learn how to speak logical particles, such as
delimiters, quite naturally if we got used to it.