Re: Comparison of philosophical languages
|From:||John Cowan <jcowan@...>|
|Date:||Monday, January 27, 2003, 2:53|
Shreyas Sampat scripsit:
> Similarly, I don't need to have a grammatical structure for telling my
> listeners that I'm about to say something that's a foreign borrowing. I
> guarantee you that if I pronounce it even close to correctly, they'll
> notice that I suddenly used a foreign word. I don't need to know where
> words end and begin because I, like any other human, am smart enough to
> hear words in connected speech. That's all extraneous information.
In Lojban, unambiguity at the phonological, morphological, and syntactic
levels is an explicit goal, so self-segregating words are a requirement.
Lojban (and Loglan) also provide self-segregating morphemes within words,
though this was not always so. The reason is to prevent members of the
community from coining identical words that have different morpheme
constituents; for a single language creator, such collisions would be
easily avoided, but in a community, collisions must be prevented.
> And again, I challenge you to give me
> the grammatical role (noun, verb, etc) of any word by its form alone.
I bet there are languages where you can unambiguously tell nouns from
verbs by their infixes, though I can't mention any straight off.
A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan
"A chemist has poisoned my brain!" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
The cause of his sorrow http://www.reutershealth.com
Was para-dichloro- email@example.com
Diphenyltrichloroethane. (aka DDT)