Didier Willis wrote:

> Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Didier Willis wrote:
> >
> > > [...] I have always
> > > wondered what people meant by *logical* languages (are there any
> > > *illogical* languages, by the way?), and as a matter of facts,
> > > many so-called logical langs often show lots of illogicalities,
> > > whereas artlangs are sometimes paradoxically much more regular
> > > and logical...
> >
> > Well, I aim to make the language as "Garrett-logical" that I can
> > make it (where everything is regular and relates in a logical way).
> > Could you tell me some examples of those so-called logical
> > languages, and the artlangs with more regular/logical structures?
> > I'd like to see their ideas on the subject.
> I was perhaps to rude here. It really depends on what people
> mean by 'logical'.
> For instance one might devise a different gender for 'inanimate'
> and 'animate' items. I am not criticizing this (it is, indeed, a
> rather logical structure), but the fact that the underlying classes
> are often defined in a rather fuzzy way. An animal, an human being,
> are aninate, but what about a tree, the sun, a rolling stone ?? So
> are we speaking here of a distinction between *inanimate* and
> *animate*, or merely between *alive* (in a stricter sense) and
> *not alive* ?
> As another example, one might try define a complex set of particles
> to express distance (here, there, yonder...), but fail to specify
> the scale. What one considers as 'far past'? Antiquity? Paleolithic?
> IMO, so-called 'logical' languages can only be logical *in
> structure*, i.e. regular to the extreme.

Garrett's theory of relativity: Exact measurements are too restrictive
and not as widely usable as relative concepts, which can be applied in
any situation. Some situations go beyond the scope of concepts when they
are defined exactly.

For example, consider the concept "hot". What do you consider hot? 70
degrees? 97? degrees? 400 degrees? 1000 degrees? If you take someone's
temperature, 97 would sound reasonable (medium temperature), and 70 would
be unhealthily cold. But, when you talk about weather, 97 is quite hot.
Then, when you start talking about oven temperatures, 97 is cool enough
to store milk in for a couple days (meaning it's cold), but 400 is more
like baking temperature. Then, if you go on to the Sun's temperature, it
would be considered a dying/dead sun if it was only 400 degrees (very
cool, compared to its regular temperature). Everything is relative.
Likewise, the concepts such as distance and time are relative.

My definition of logical is organized in a fashion that is most
simple/regular in structure, so that it's predictable. In this sense,
Malat will be the most logical language invented, because all of its
arrangements will be orderly and logically structured.

> > >
> > >    "Another unique concept is that most modifiers can be used
> > >    on both verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Because of the structure
> > >    of Malat, many unique concepts can be made by using simple
> > >    construction rules."
> > >
> > > Regarding uniqueness, I am afraid that many conlangs (and even
> > > natlangs) work this way. Nova (Brad Coon's conlang) has a strong
> > > oligosynthetic structure and has therefore reached a particular
> > > status on this topic.
> >
> > Do those languages use most of their modifiers interchangably
> > between nouns/verbs/adjectives? I don't know much about the
> > particular conlangs that there are, and I didn't really know if
> > others used that concept...
> Some langs do not distinguish verbs, nouns or adjectives which
> are represented by a single stem. The distinction may exist, but
> be either syntactic (e.g. word order) or semantic (contextual).
> So in this case, the same modifiers are applied to a stem that
> could appear to be used as a noun, verb or adjective.
> Similarly, I once noticed that aspects can be applied not only
> to verbs, but to nouns also. For instance with inchoative:
>    he INCHOATIVE-eats = he begins to eat.
>    INCHOATIVE-day     = the beginning the day, dawn.
> As another example of modifiers applied to verbs and
> to noun as well, just consider the english pronouns:
>    he works  (= the work is performed by a male being)
>    "he-goat" (= male goat)
> That's more or less what I meant when I criticized your
> claims of uniqueness. Of course, your paculiar added value
> could be to define a more general and regular system.

Yes, I plan to make all of the different structures in Malat logical, not
just some of them logical and others designed at my whim. (well, you
could consider the whole project under the control of my whim.)

> > I pronounce the vowel in all of these words the same:- dot
> > - caught
> > - father (first syllable)
> > - wrong
> > - tall
> For 'tall' and 'caught' I do agree, but for the remaining ones...
> Well, I am french, so my pronunciation of english is certainly
> biases :), and anyway there are many english accents (Texan
> accent and Oxford's are not the same, aren't they ?:*). For this
> last reason at least, you should switch to an IPA transcription.

What's the IPA transcription for the "open ah" sound? (as opposed to the
other sound which is more close to being like the 'o' in 'close').

-Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

-Garrett Jones aka Alkaline
Rising Sun - C&C2: Tiberian Sun -
Malat -