2013/1/18 Mathieu Roy <[log in to unmask]>: > > that doesn't assigning a gender to things that don't have one. Even people > that speak such a language as their mother tongue make mistakes. And how > does assigning a gender to things is "more human", "easier to learn for > babies", or even "more poetic"? Sometimes people take advantage of word gender in animismic stories to associate real sex to things. For some reason, I always had little influence of word gender in this type of association: as a child, I used to see the Sun as a woman and the Moon as a man, although the genders of these words in Portuguese suggest the opposite; I think I was more influenced by the appearance of them... [...] > <<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.>> > I disagree. I think it would be helpful for communication to have less > ambiguity. In addition to previous examples, I will add that having two > times 12 hours in a day sometimes leads to misunderstanding and someone can > end up somewhere at the wrong time. While it is true that we can precise if > we mean in the afternoon or morning, etc., we can forget. But in a 24 hours > base system (which some natural languages do use) one cannot forget to > precise it. (and personally, I think 24 hours is still not ideal; something > like 10 would be more useful IMO: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time). OTOH, IMO it would be better to change eveything else to duodecimal (as we are not talking about the viability of the change). > << If the costs of switching languages were zero, and the only difference > between natlangs and loglangs were the regularity of the grammar and the > polysemy of the words in the lexicon, then there might be very little > advantage in sticking with messy, irregular natlangs. Some other posters on > the thread have mentioned poetry; it's possible to write poetry (and do > other forms of wordplay) in an unnaturally regular and monosemous conlang > (the many volumes of poetry published in Esperanto[*] are proof of that), > but I'll concede for the sake of argument that it's somehwat more difficult > than in the the typical natlang. >> > I agree. A well-know problem with poetry in Esperanto is that you can only rhyme words of the same class. But there are natlangs that only have three vowels, so they also have to find other ways to create poetry that are not very dull. > And I don't think it would be difficult for a > native speaker of a logical language to make the difference between the two > "or" for example. In my conlang (that I want to be logic), I have a generic "and/or/xor" word whose sense can be completed with particles that mean "additionaly, too", "alternatively", "exclusively".