Print

Print


2015-10-22 11:53 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>:

> Indeed: under the And--Logan definition of loglang, which I think you
> support, Lojban is only very marginally and tenuously a loglang; it's less
> distant from being a prototypical loglang than English is, but it is
> nevertheless very far from the prototypical loglang. I guess the
> prototypical loglang would be a fairly transparent encoding of standard PL
> notation (a la Liva) coupled with an actual functionally adequate lexicon
> (so that it is capable of being used). AFAIK no conlang that is both fully
> a loglang and replete with functionally adequate lexicon yet exists (am I
> wrong?), tho I have recently suddenly started trying to make one.
>

Note that it'd be extremely nice to be able to translate test sentences
into such a conlang with their translation to PL (FOPL, FOPL+, whatever).
So if not an automatic tool but at least a corpus of comprehensive test
sentences (that ideally would be able to understand how to fully translate
Alice in Wonderland into it) is necessary so that we can say that it's both
a speakable language and logic at the same time.