On 28/10/2015 09:21, And Rosta wrote:
> On 28 October 2015 at 07:43, R A Brown wrote:
> How many parts of speech does a loglang per_se need?
>> 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.


> 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.

"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".