Hallo conlangers!

On Tuesday 20 November 2012 00:54:07 Leonardo Castro wrote:

> 2012/11/19 Jrg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>:
> >> On 18 November 2012 13:40, Jrg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> > Hallo conlangers!
> >> > [...]
> >> "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.

Sure.  There are certainly features (or combinations of features)
that occur in *no* natlangs but could be used by human beings
without problems.  Some rare features just do not happen to occur
together by sheer accident.  (If one out of 100 languages has
feature A, and one out of 200 languages has feature B, and they are
logically independent of each other, one out of 20,000 languages
will have both, and as there are less than 20,000 languages on this,
planet, chances are that the combination does not occur at all.)

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