Print

Print


<<But what I do not and will not go along with is someone who wants the
whole world to speak a particular auxlang or a particular loglang and, as
Padraic says, such advocacy is not appropriate on this list.>>

Nor will I. I will quote myself "In the end everybody is (or at least should
be IMO) free to speak the language they want (except maybe in court?). So if
you think that a logical language is "better", then learn one, otherwise
don't." 

At worst, I implied that I personally prefer more logical language. But I
did not advocate for any specific language, nor did I say that everyone
should learn a logical language. Please quote me if I did, but before that I
think your reactions are inappropriate. 

If I can quote myself again from a previous email "Sorry for my badly
phrased [question]. I agree that people should learn a language only if they
want to [...] That's why I reformulated my though in a latter email asking
for advantages of less logical languages because that's what I really wanted
to know in the end. So I apologize."

My long email was only about discussing of the advantages of logical
languages and non-logical ones in a theoretical way. While it is true that I
enumerated some points that I consider advantages of logical languages, I
did not say anyone should learn one, so I did not advocate anything. 

I am creating a logical language, so isn't appropriate for me to ask your
opinion about some aspects of logical languages?

If someone is interested to talk about this off list, please write to me:
[log in to unmask]

Mathieu

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Constructed Languages List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la
part de R A Brown
Envoyé : samedi 19 janvier 2013 11:06
À : [log in to unmask]
Objet : Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g]
VS Natlang)

On 18/01/2013 20:51, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- On Fri, 1/18/13, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
[snip]

>> I'm not saying we should remove the paint and the
>> wallpaper, I'm just saying we should repair the
>> plumbing and the holes in the wall.
>
> Perhaps there really isn't anything wrong with the
> plumbing after all...

I don't find  anything particularly wrong with it, either.

> With all due respect, it's not my intention to get into
> a dreadful loglang v. natlang discussion.

Nor I.

[snip]
>
> Perhaps at this point you might consider taking this to
> Auxlang or some sort of loglang analog?

Yes, _please_.

> I deleted a whole lot of your post, which might be better
> off over that way, since it really is more about loglang
> supremacy at the worst or advocacy at the very least.

Yep. If Mathieu wants to speak a loglang, then there's
already Lojban and the original Loglan to choose from.

Loglangs are an *interesting experiment* as a type of
conlang.  I have no quarrel whatever with those interested
in the experiment or with those who want to learn them.  The
same goes for auxlangs.

But what I do not and will not go along with is someone who
wants the whole world to speak a particular auxlang or a
particular loglang and, as Padraic says, such advocacy is
not appropriate on this list.

>> FINAL THOUGHT: If there were no natural languages, how
>> would you create one and why?
>
> If there were no natural languages, we wouldn't be able
> to create one, because we'd have no concept of language
> with which to create.

Quite - the question itself is illogical!

[snip]
>
> Final thought: I'm just going to reiterate my totally
> nonlogical assertion: no, it would not be a good thing
> for everyone to speak a loglang.

No indeed it wouldn't.  The great varieties of natlangs and
all their endearing idiosyncrasies is what got me interested
in language some sixty or so years ago, and still keeps my
interest.  How boring if we all spoke a bland loglang!

> It ain't broke, so why try to fix it? And leave the
> discussion at that.

AMEN!

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]