--- Mattieu Roy scrievit:

> Do you think it would be good that everyone be able to speak a loglan?
> I have been arguing all night on this. Personally I think it would be 
> good.
> If you want me to define what I mean by good, let me know, but for now I
> let you define it as you want.

I think that in not knowing your reference point, the whole question and
discussion are meaningless. Reason being, by stressing the fact that you're
not going to offer a definition you seem to be intimating that there is 
some secondary or alternate meaning in play or some ulterior motive. "Good"
has too many definition and is too varied in possible intent for you to
leave it undefined.

Therefore, I am hereby ignoring the stated question, relying on the
unagreed upon definition of "good" and replaced it with a word of less 
potential contention: "necessary".

I'm guessing you meant "loglang", i.e. logical language? If so, no. No one
really has any need for such a thing. Daily existence and daily needs are
rarely so wanting of logical expression or precision that a loglang would 
foist upon it.

On the contrary, the very precision and rigorous order so imposed by a
highly logical language would, in my opinion, only serve to dehumanise or
denaturlise the balanced chaos of ordinary life. I am no fan of logical,
or in general constructed auxiliary languages, so perhaps some bias might
be in play here.

In any event, natural languages (and of course my primary experience here 
is English) are entirely capable of any reasonable amount of logic, 
precision and order needed by anyone for any purpose. We in general are
just too lazy to engage in such logical speech in a consistent manner.

--- Matthieu Roy wrote:

> What are the advantages of speaking a less logical language (a language 
> with grammar rules with a lot of exceptions, a lot of words with 
> ambiguity, etc.)?

Ray said it best: we are humans. And humans are not by nature logical or
even terribly rational beings (we do try, though!). We tend to see what 
isn't there and come up with nonsensical explanations for things. A less
than logical language that is good at ambiguity and natural poesy, but that
can at need be aligned on a more logical plan is the best fit. It's what 
our own brains and our own culture have collectively and unconsciously
decided works well enough for human communication. It may not be perfect, 
it certainly isn't entirely logical but it works, and it's so easy baby can
learn it, and those are two great advantages over the more experimental 
loglangs that require intense study and even the 'experts' can't always
get right.

--- On Fri, 1/18/13, MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]> quipped:

> --- Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask] wrote:
> > There exists a people who should all speak a loglan and that is the
> > Vulcans.
> > I discussed this elsewhere and those who know more about Star Trek than
> > me seem to be saying that there is too much already written about 
> > Vulcans and their space elvish language, 
> But the Vulcans of Star Trek do NOT exist. 

True, and he didn't say they actually exist, but even if they did, there 
would be no reason to suppose they must speak a logical language (such as 
Lojban). We know just enough about Star Trek Vulcan culture, physiology 
and psychology to know that they are not so different from us: they are 
not logical by nature, but rather by long and arduous training. It may 
very well be that those Vulcans who are deepest in the art of logic use 
some kind of loglang as a second language; but I'd doubt that such a beast 
would be their cradle language.

Within the ST universe, we also know that Romulans and Vulcans are very
close (if not identical) physiologically and they have a shared history.
It would stand to reason that the basic nature of the Vulcan language(s)
is more like that of the Romulans, barring some sort of radical purge.

> > but I think real world Vulcans would either convert their natural 
> > language to a loglan or write one from scratch.

They might very well do the latter.

> > And that's all I'll say because we're too close to auxlang advocacy and
> > that would require switching to the other mailing list to continue the
> > discussion.