On 15/10/2015 10:03, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
> Um - I must return to my Glossopoeia page and redefine
> 'loglang', I think. but it will have to wait as I am
> actually in the process of updating stuff on Britainese
> ;)
>
I think it is not only Britainese holding me up on this, but
also some other points that need rethinking.
On my 'Glossopoeia & Glossopoeic Languages' page, I wrote:
{quote}
... Thus we find in the early Conlang period loglang and
loglan used interchangeably to mean "engelang." This is all
very unsatisfactory. In this section I used Loglan to mean
JCB's language as defined by The Loglan Institute, and
Lojban to mean the language, originally derived from JCB's
early Loglan, and developed by the Logical Language Group.
The term 'loglang' is now properly confined to those
languages which are based on formal logic - in practice
predicate logic. The term 'loglan' is sometimes used to mean
any conlang ultimately descended from JCB's original
language. Thus Voksigid (1991-1992) may be termed a loglan,
but many feel it has departed too far from formal logic to
be termed a loglang.
{unquote}
I no longer feel that using loglan as a generic term for any
language that is ultimately descended from JCB's original
Loglan helpful. I think the only unambiguous generic
noun is _loglang_. Therefore, the above will be changed
and, as I wrote in my previous email, my definition of
'loglang' itself will be changed.
Let us accept for the sake of argument what And wrote, namely:
"Natural languages encode [predicate--argument structure]s
of limited complexity and do it ambiguously."
and:
"A loglang ... is a language that unambiguously encodes
predicate--argument structure of unlimited complexity."
If we accept this, what is your opinion of the longlangitude
of 'Plan B' and of Voksigid?
[PLAN B]
The simplest predicate-argument structure is arguably pa,
i.e. a unary predicate (I guess it could be argued the
simplest is a nullary predicate - but it's difficult to see
how a language with the grammar S-> pS{<nil> would work; but
I don't want to argue that here).
The grammar of Jeff Prothero's Plan B could be considered as
S -> paS|<nil>, since each sentence consists of a string of
semantic units followed by a morpheme indicating its
precedence in a parse tree. Thus, if we for the sake
of argument, use English for the semantic unit (predicate)
and a numeral indicating tree precedence (argument) then we
may render the specimen sentences thus:
I like you -> me(0) like(1) you(0)
She likes me -> her(0) like(1) me(0)
I drive the car -> me(0) drive(1) the(1) car(0)
I drive her car -> me(0) drive(1) her(1) car(0)
I can drive a car -> me(0) can(1) drive(1) a(1) car(0).
I like her driving my car -> me(0) like(2) her(0) drive(1)
me(1) car(0).
I will drive my car to you -> me(0) will(1) drive(1) me(1)
car(0) to(1) you(0)
(These are not the precedence ratings I would give for the
penultimate and antepenultimate sentences - but never mind.)
Now I dismissed the language as an loglang because it did
not appear to me to be based on any formal logic. But was I
right to do so? Does the language comply with And's definition?
[VOKSIGID]
For a description of the unfinished language, see:
http://viewsoflanguage.host56.com/voksigid/
AIUI modern predicate grammar sees predicates as relations
or functions over arguments. Predicates are placed on the
left outside of brackets, whereas the predicate's arguments
are placed inside the brackets; and the number and position
of the arguments is determined by the valency of the predicate.
Now, it would seem (Correct me if I'm mistaken) that in
Loglan and Lojban, if the 'correct' order of arguments
is followed no prefixed/preposited particle is used before
any of the arguments. However, the arguments may be put in a
different order if such a particle is used.
But Voksigid seems to me to have gone a stage further.
There is no predetermined order for arguments; their
relation to the predicate must be marked by prepositions.
Indeed, I see no difference in Voksigid between a
predicate's arguments and any adjuncts it may be given.
How is it, indeed, not a verb first language with the
relationship of arguments being marked by prepositions, i.e.
a sort of "reverse Japanese."
Can it be classified as a loglang?
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigenen Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
