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
>> 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.