On 28 October 2015 at 07:43, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 2015-10-28 3:46 GMT+03:00 Granny Grammar:
>> "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,
Yes, at least in the sense that it is also true of taxonomy in the natural

> not a property of the language.
Even for natlangs that's debatable, but for engelangs we generally consider
that the description of the language is the definition of the language, tho
I suppose that a simpler description that generates the same sentences
might, if discovered, be preferred.

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.

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. Firstly there are alternative
candidates for grammatically minimal loglang grammar and secondly those are
amenable to alternative analyses with different numbers of PoS. We already
know that under certain analytical assumptions one can argue that a loglang
has one PoS, but those analytical assumptions don't necessarily commend
themselves. 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.