On 19 Oct 2015 21:50, "Jörg Rhiemeier" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > On 19.10.2015 21:59, And Rosta wrote: > >> IMO an IAL would be nice to have, but only if it's a really really good >> loglang, better than any we currently have. So I wouldn't agree with any of >> your IAL principles, tho I recognize that you articulate a mainstream and >> traditional view. > > > I disagree. Loglangs are IMHO pretty difficult to learn and use due to their remoteness from natlangs, and are probably too "mathematical" for most people. How many people are willing to wrap their mind around formal logic just to learn a *language*? (At least, I found Lojban one of the most difficult languages to understand its grammar.) Which bit do you disagree with? IIRC you are not an IAL proponent, because you recognize that English already serves that function. The loglang IAL doesn't compete with English (or Esperanto). And you presumably understand that the loglang has the advantage of encoding propositional thought without ambiguity and without limit to the thought's complexity, and presumably can appreciate that that has considerable practical value. But any loglang is going to be quite mindboggling, so it would only be used when the interlocutors prize expressive power and unambiguity over avoidance of mindboggling. It's quite likely that you, favouring mindboggling-avoidance, would always find English sufficient to your needs, but I think you will be capable of imagining how useful a loglang might be to some others across the world when precision is required. > Also, I have opined several times here that language and formal logic serve different purposes, which makes logical languages seem quite beside the point to me. Yes, but since you opined that, I and Logan have explained that you misunderstood if not formal logic then at least the nature of loglangs, so I'd hope you have updated your opinion in line with the better information now available to you. --And.