2015-10-17 16:44 GMT+03:00 Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hallo conlangers!
> On 17.10.2015 11:09, R A Brown wrote:
> [...]
>> I do not want to be brought into the Loglan~Lojban
>> controversy whether "loglan" should be used as a generic
>> noun or not.  Therefore in the rewrite I shall *not* use
>> 'loglan' that way; as I explained on 15th October:
>> {quote}
>> 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.
>> (unquote}
> Fair.  There is Loglan (with a capital L), that is JCB's language; there
> are "loglangs" (with ng), short for "logical languages", which are
> languages that, in the words of the English Wikipedia, "are meant to allow
> (or enforce) unambiguous statements. They are typically based on predicate
> logic but can also be based on any system of formal logic"[1].  Whether a
> category of "loglans", which would include Loglan, Lojban and other
> languages based on the same principles (if there are any) is useful, is
> doubtful.
> [1]

The phrase follows: "Logical languages are meant to allow (or enforce)
unambiguous statements."

Obviously "allow" is not the right word. How can English not allow
unambiguous statements?
Also unambiguous in syntax or lexicon or both?

"Enforce" is rather related to usage.

It may be true that Lojban and Loglan are promoted as enforcing unambiguity
in syntax by their internal structure but this is then just a sermon, not
any true linguistic facts.

It might be true, though, that internal structure of those two languages is
optimized so that some syntactic ambiguities common in English are harder
to express in Loglan/Lojban and vice versa.

So replying to some saying that I defend Lojban I'd rather say that I don't
defend it at all at being some unique unambiguous language.
I speak it and I can't see any such praised mythical features in it (as
syntactic unambiguity) compared to English.

Maybe mastering Lojban is different from mastering English but again all
languages differ in that.

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia since its claims are supported only by the
original research (the Lojban reference grammar only).

If for you "loglang" means "a language based on predicate logic" then I'd
support one of theses solutions:

1. Add both English and Lojban to the list of "loglangs"
2. Remove both English and Lojban from the list of "loglangs"
3. reformulate as "loglang is a language some grammar of which claims that
the language is based on predicate logic (which is not necessarily true)"
and then remove English but leave Lojban in the list.

> Subsequently, on 16th October I wrote:
>> {quote}
>> Who coined the term 'loglang' is probably unknown.  I was a
>> fairly obvious coinage derived from JCB's 'Loglan' and the
>> familiar -lang suffix used on this list.  You will see that
>> tho _engelang_ was well defined, even back in the late 1990s
>> 'loglang' was somewhat vaguely understood.
>> {unquote}
>> I shall use only _loglang_ as the generic noun.  what I am
>> attempting to do is to arrive at a less vague definition of
>> the word.
> There have been cases of "loglan" being used as an abbreviation for
> "logical language", i.e. synonymous with "loglang".  But we now have
> "loglang" (with ng) for that, and as "Loglan" is the name of a particular
> loglang, the usage of "loglan" with small L is best avoided completely.
> --
> ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1