On 28/10/2015 09:21, And Rosta wrote: > On 28 October 2015 at 07:43, R A Brown wrote: [snip] > > How many parts of speech does a loglang per_se need? > IIRC >> both Jörg and I _suggested_ just two: lexical words >> ("full words") ~ function words ("empty words") >> :) > > > I was about to reply when I noticed that delayed smiley. Also I underlined _suggested_ - I think neither Jörg nor I have actually thought seriously about construction of a loglang. It was just a throw away suggestion FWIW - and the smiley was meant to imply "It may not be worth anything; don't take it too seriously", as you obviously realized. > As for how many parts of speech a loglang needs, my > current thinking would be that there's no reasonably > objective answer to converge on yet, tho further study > might well reveal one. Yep - I'd go along with that. [snip] > We already know that under certain analytical assumptions > one can argue that a loglang has one PoS, We do, indeed! > but those analytical assumptions don't necessarily > commend themselves. As we saw recently in one somewhat protracted loglang thread ;) > I guess my overall feeling about the PoS inventory > question is that the notion 'PoS' gets not very > interesting and not very applicable at this level of > minimality and basicness. Yes, I think this is probably correct if we're coupling minimalist grammar with loglangness. -- Ray ================================== http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigenen Kosten denkt, wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun." [J.G. Hamann, 1760] "A mind that thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language".