Print

Print


<<Njenfalgar: English has the words to express all these things. >>
I agree. But for me it seems more complicated to express my thoughts in the
natural languages I know. (I'm not saying this is good or bad, and I'm not
saying that this is true for everybody.) 

What do you think is (approximately) the minimum number of words necessary
to express "all" human thoughts? For example, do you think that human can
express all there thoughts in Toki Pona? In fact, maybe someone on the list
speak Toki Pona and could say if s/he can express everything s/he wants to
communicate clearly. I would like to know.

<<Njenfalgar: And if you do find the exact word, chances are it will be so
specialised a word that your audience won't understand this word, and you're
only off worse.>>
I agree. I think a conversation can difficulty be more "intelligent" than
the "less intelligent" agent in the communication. (and by "intelligent", I
mean what you said, meaning if one agent don't know a word, than the other
cannot really use it). 

<<Me: "In the end everybody is (or at least should be IMO) free to speak the
language they want (except maybe in court?).
Ray: "except maybe in court" - a little worrying, methinks>>
[off topic] IINM, in Canada, immigrants are obliged to learn one of the
official language; that's mainly why I wrote "except maybe in court". What
do you think about that law? (If this enter in the category "advocation for
language"; please ignore my question).

<<Me "So if you think that a logical language is "better", then learn one,
otherwise don't."
Ray:  OK - but I have steeled myself and re-read your long email of the 18th
January.  It reads to me a whole lot like advocating the use of loglangs.>>
Ok, I reread too, and I agree there were some points that could have looked
like this, and I will be more careful in the future on how I formulate my
sentences. I think that since I interpreted some people comments as
advocating for natlang, I answered by saying the points I liked/preferred
about loglang, hence the confusion. I think it's just fine to not allow that
people advocate for loglang in this list, but I think this should also apply
to advocating natlang.

<<Me: At worst, I implied that I personally prefer more logical language.
But I did not advocate for any specific language.
Ray: Indeed not.  So then you advocate different people learning different
loglangs?>>
Honestly, I might have difficulty to interpret some connotations of the word
"advocate" (English isn't my first language). But I don't think anybody
should be imposed to speak any constructed languages (obviously), nor
natural languages (except *maybe* an official language of their country -
see my point above - but IDK, and I am not pronouncing myself on this
subject since I don't want to advocate any languages).


<<It was the overall impression I got from your very long email which, I
must confess, I found (and still find) difficult to follow in full.>>
Well, thanks for trying at least. I tried to make it my points clear, but
maybe I didn't after all.

<<Ray: That would be fine, if you confined your questions to loglang design.
But all the clap-trap about the advantages of a loglang is IMO advocacy.>>
Ok. In the future, I will try to avoid using the words "advantage" and
"disadvantage". I will be more specific. For example, I could ask: "How can
we make grammar with fewer rules?" but I will try to not pronounce myself on
whether this is "good" or "bad" IMO to have fewer rules.

<<Ray: BTW I don't really understand what the subject means.  Is a
"not-so-logical language" something like Voksigid?  Or what?>>
Well, at first I wanted to call it "stupid language", but then I thought
that was NOT the right way to express what I wanted to say because what I
really mean by "not-so-logical language" is simply a language that is not
loglang. And also, by a logical language, I did not meant a language without
metaphor and stuff like that, I meant with less ambiguity (for example, a
word that announce that one is going to do a metaphor) and with more regular
in grammar for example. I think that to classify languages in the binary
form: logical or not, is a lot simplified. I think there's a spectrum of
logic that a language can have, and I think that by "logic" I meant less
logic that what has been interpreted. 


<<Leonardo: 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... >>
Thanks for your opinion.

<<Leonardo: OTOH, IMO it would be better to change eveything else to
duodecimal (as we are not talking about the viability of the change).>>
Could you explain me why?

<<Leonardo: 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.>>
Thanks for your opinion. I agree.

<<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".>>
Interesting. So does all combinations are possible: and/or/xor with
additionaly, too/alternatively/exclusively? And do all 9 have different
meaning?

Mathieu