Print

Print


I could write a lot of reasons, but they boil down to one:

The loglang discussions are annoying. It's a bunch of opinions and
arguments about linguistic superiority and nitpicks.

I do not want loglangs on our mailing list. Quote-unquote non-logical
engelangs can stay, but not loglangs.

I suppose artlangs will have to go too, right? I mean, why stop at
loglangs? First, auxlangs, now loglangs, why not artlangs too? Be
realistic: all this artistic discussion is just a useless lump of
starry-eyed, ridiculous subjectivity, right? Not to mention I find
artlangs incredibly annoying. Artlangs should go. As a matter of fact,
why don't we just kick everyone off who annoys us, you and I? I've
always hated romalngs; can we expel them too?

Sorry, that was rude, not to mention probably ill-executed. But do you
see my point? Where does it stop? One can't just keeping expelling
people from the list whenever someone gets annoyed, or eventually we'd
just have a bunch of conlangers ranting to themselves on their own
private lists. Furthermore, there are other people on this list who do
not find the discussion of loglangs annoying, and still others who
enjoy it. Additionally, does not loglang discussion contribute to
linguistic, if not conlanging, theory? I would posit that loglanging
is an excellent means exploration into mechanics of language itself;
after all, do not language and logic both formalize, in a sense, human
thought? I would argue that language and logic cannot be separated at
all, as all languages employ *some* sort of logic in order to
communicate a coherent message and also are rendered much more utile
the more logic they employ (with certain definitions of utility,
granted). Creating "logical" languages allows one to explore this
relationship, which is a worthy conlanging endeavor if I ever saw one.

Of course, there may be some situations where you might have a point;
maybe loglangs do not really contribute much to the community and only
inflame the ire of the various denizens of the list at times, but
which is expulsion of the offenders really a sustainable strategy?
This brings us back to the first point brought up. But, you say, what
solution do *you* offer? Well, I would propose the solution of
personal restraint and intelligent thinking. Yes, I realize that there
is no absolute means of enforcing this, but is there any foolproof
means of preventing the lack thereof? Are we not "risking" its
occurrence even now, even as we speak? You might even be of the mind
that it may even be too late as I have already passed the boundaries
of "personal restraint and intelligent thinking". At the end of the
day, the very reason this list still exists as we now it and has not
reverted to the aforementioned extrapolation is because those
subscribing had the restraint, intelligence, maturity, and wisdom to
carry on an intellectual conversation. So, with this, I leave the
readers four challenges. Two are for you, Sid: first, try and see the
value of loglang discussions, and second, if you still can't stand
them, then forget about it; you may disagree with what they say, but
you have no right to deny *them* the right to say it. The third and
fourth are for all others who might happen upon this post: first, see
Sid's first challenge, and second, exercise personal restraint and
intelligent thinking (yes, I know it's cheesy) in your discussions.
Without these two things no intellectual discussion, much less this
one, can survive.

Anyway yeah. That's what I think. Feel free to argue. I'd love to
discuss the matter and see if we can come up with more solutions. Oh
and sorry for the didactic tone; I get that way when I rant sometimes.

A4aa a-4u!

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Sid <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I could write a lot of reasons, but they boil down to one:
>
> The loglang discussions are annoying. It's a bunch of opinions and
> arguments about linguistic superiority and nitpicks.
>
> I do not want loglangs on our mailing list. Quote-unquote non-logical
> engelangs can stay, but not loglangs.



-- 
Sincerely,
         William S. Wright