On 15/10/2015 17:18, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > 2015-10-15 18:45 GMT+03:00 R A Brown: > [snip] >> 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." > > Any examples of this ambiguity for one group and > unambiguity for the other? I'll leave it to And to comment on his definitions if he wishes. Ambiguity in natlangs occur all the time; loglangs claim to give unambiguous utterances. >> >> If we accept this, what is your opinion of the >> longlangitude of 'Plan B' and of Voksigid? >> > > Protero's Plan B and Voksigid are simply underformalized. > Where is the full description and the dictionary of > Voksigid? The page > http://viewsoflanguage.host56.com/voksigid/ says > nothing. Sure - but from what has been specified, should they be regarded as loglangs? Their authors clearly thought they should. [snip] > > Of course, you decide what the term "loglang" means for > you. But indeed it's better to formalize the term since > even Wikipedia is affected. Sure - and I want to be as _objective_ as possible. ============================================================== On 15/10/2015 18:17, Logan Kearsley wrote: > On 15 October 2015 at 09:45, R A Brown wrote: [snip] > > Personally, while I like And's definition for it's > simplicity and clarity, I think it a bit too narrow. I am > uncertain just how much it can be broadened without > losing all practical meaning, however. ;) [snip] > and if the finite set of referents is small enough, then > most natlangs qualify, which seems wrong, but it still > feels like there is a qualitative difference if the set > of referents that can be unambiguously distinguished is, > say, 50, rather than 3 or 4. Agreed. > Broadenings that I am more comfortable with would be to > say that a loglang is a language which *can* encode > arbitrary structure unambiguously (thus allowing that a > loglang may also allow ambiguity if you want it, which is > probably important for usability), and that a loglang is > a language which is *intended* to encode arbitrary > structure unambiguously. I like _intended_; it reflects the intention of the author(s). But I'm not so happy with _can_; I think if a loglang allows permitted ambiguity, IMO it is compromising its intention. If the only usable loglangs do permit ambiguity then it seems to that this is telling us that a 'pure' loglang is not usable by humans for ordinary intercourse. > Although, it may after all be a good idea to leave intent > out of it and just refer to "failed loglangs" I'd rather not do this. To start referring to "failed loglangs" seems to me to be entering a similar minefield to that of referring to "failed auxlangs." I've had enough of the latter in my time and don't want to enter another minefield ;) ========================================================== On 16/10/2015 11:44, Alex Fink wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:18:23 +0300, Gleki Arxokuna > wrote: > >> 2015-10-15 18:45 GMT+03:00 R A Brown: >> >>> If we accept this, what is your opinion of the >>> longlangitude of 'Plan B' and of Voksigid? >> >> Protero's Plan B and Voksigid are simply >> underformalized. Where is the full description and the >> dictionary of Voksigid? The page >> http://viewsoflanguage.host56.com/voksigid/ says >> nothing. > > Plan B was explicitly a thought-experiment, wasn't it? I think it was rather more than that: http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Exp/a%20Near-optimal%20Loglan.pdf It sets out to design and _implement_ a near-optimal loglang syntax. Does the syntax a loglang syntax? > I'm afraid I have to agree regarding Voksigid, though. > Perhaps, for those of us who were around in 1991--92 and > watched its development, it was a full loglang aborning. > But that "us" excludes me. It excludes me also :) [snip] > > The sense I get from that documentation, for what that's > worth, is one culturally more in line with auxlangs in > the Esperanto tradition. That's probably because Bruce Gilson was/is primarily interested in auxlang - but he would not the reference to Esperanto :-) He was/is an ardent opponent of Esperanto and, indeed, was one of the main contributors to that weekend in January 1996 that led to the Great Sundering. But you are right; for all his hostility towards E-o, he did like things such as POS marking. His version of Novial wanted to take the language in a more Esperantine direction. [snip] > ... This gives me the impression that Gilson hadn't > properly embraced the freedom to choose which sorts of > morpheme boundaries should be elevated to word > boundaries, but was at some level following a dictum like > "if it's one word in SAE, it shall be one word in > Voksigid". Very probably. [snip] > > Using a case grammar inspired approach, with explicit > role markers, certainly doesn't disqualify a language > from loglanghood, though. Canonical paaS more or less > does the same ad absurdum. Yep. ======================================================= Following leads given by Gleki, I came across this definition of loglang: "... a language in which every utterance is traceable to a unique representation in a suitable logic formalism, which representation correctly gives the meaning of the utterance, and is reached from the linguistic form by automatic formal rules (parsing)" Thoughts? -- 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".