Print

Print


"How many parts of speech does a loglang need?"

"Parts of speech" is a unit of analysis imposed by the person looking at
the language, not a property of the language.

One person may see "pronouns," while another will look at the same bunch of
words and see masculine pronouns, feminine pronouns, neuter pronouns, and
wonder why the hell this particular language doesn't divide them into
animate and inanimate pronouns.

-dlj.

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 2:49 PM, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 24 Oct 2015 14:13, "Gleki Arxokuna" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > 2015-10-24 15:58 GMT+03:00 R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>:
> > So my question was if Liva is a loglang why deictics (together with
> > pronouns) are in a separate category?
>
> It's no impediment to satisfying the criterion of
> Loglanghood, namely that the lg be capable of unambiguously encoding PAS of
> unlimited complexity.
>
> As for why the loglang might depart from the purity of the single
> wordclass, a fully-fledged loglang requires a lexicon that casts upon the
> conceptual world its network of categories, and loglang designers may vary
> in the extent to which they prefer their lexical network to be orderly and
> structured. Claudio probably was temperamentally disposed towards the
> highly structured and orderly, for in his day job he is an expert in
> library subject classification schemes.
>
> > > I note Claudio listed And Rosta as among the people whose
> > > discussion helped in the formation of the language; maybe
> > > And knows why Claudio did not, in fact, have a separate
> > > "pronoun" category.
>
> I don't remember. I didn't remember the various word classes. It was 15--20
> years ago that Claudio was working on Liva.
>
> Indeed I had failed to remember the extent to which Liva is not just the
> transparent encoding of mainstream PL notation that, when casting around
> for an example of a loglang that is such, I had identified it as being.
> Probably nobody has bothered to do something as simple as a pure
> transparent encoding like that, because it would be so dully free of
> intellectual challenge.
>
> --And.
>