Re: Four things: Was: Comparison of philosophical languages

Sally Caves scripsit:

> It would help to know what "enge-" stands
> for; I know this was discussed a year or so ago, but I need reminding.
"Engineered".

> Also, could you please give me an example of a criterion and how it is
> tested for to see that it is met?
Well, in xuxuxi phonology, for example, I had several criteria:

1) CV syllable structure;
2) an "easy" phonology;
3) lots of roots, enough to cover all of WordNet (a large
   database of meanings of English words).

So I tried to reason out what would be a good set of phonemes.  The
classical five-vowel structure seemed good, and also /p t k b d g m n/
right off.  Voiced fricatives are unstable, and lots of languages
conflate them with voiced stops, so I allowed /b d g/ to be either stops
or fricatives.  Also, the distinction between /p t k/ and /b d g/ is
allowed to be either true voicing or aspiration (or even both, as in Irish);
that helps accommodate English and Chinese speakers for whom aspiration
is the primary distinction.  And so on.

I'm not making these choices because of my personal *taste*, you understand;
they are meant as engineering tradeoffs.  I slowly added more phonemes
as I needed them in order to cover WordNet without the words getting too
long.  /f s S x/ (S written "c") came in quickly; then much later and
reluctantly /r j/ (j written "y") as well.  Reluctantly because these are
less stable and easier to confuse.

Back in May 2001, Padraic Brown wrote about it:

> If it's just an artlang that you think might make a cool auxlang too;
> either make clear that the idea is not serious (Europanto) or just
> keep it in pectore.
to which I replied:

> But that's not what I have in mind. I am introducing features into JIAL
> not because I think they are k3wl, but because I think they would work
> *as* an IAL here in the Primary World.
>
> But this is not IAL advocacy, any more than political philosophy is politics.
I probably had Plato's *Republic* in mind.

> > This is
> > different from claiming that the criteria themselves are "objective".
>
> Which is what a logical language does?
I would say that a loglang is an engelang among whose criteria are having
predicate logic as an underpinning.  Loglan, the first loglang, was
intended to "make logic speakable".  Until the coming of And's Livagian
and my xuxuxi, the extant engelangs were loglangs.

> So Lojban is an engelang and not a loglang?  It sounds as though you are
> applying your definition of an engelang to Lojban, which I had thought was a
> logical language.  Perhaps the one term has replaced the other?
Well, subsumed it.

> I might eventually try my hand at a universal language, but only as it is
> invented by a Teonivar.  Which I suppose defeats the purpose and keep me
> contentedly blind, but it will help me test what the cultural assumptions
> are of my invented culture.  An invented invented language.
Well, my intention with xuxuxi (not really met) was to make the best IAL
I could, but only as a work of art, not as a plan that I advocate.

> I've heard of these Strange Powers.
The original context is Cordwainer Smith's sf novel *Norstrilia*.  I quote
from memory and probably inaccurately:

        "Nobody move, people", said the Lord Redlady.  "If anyone
        moves, murder will be done.  I will do it.  And if I do commit
        murder, I will indict myself, try myself, and acquit myself.
        I have strange powers, people.  Don't make me use them."

ObOT:  I've always loved the names of Smith's "Lords of the Instrumentality
of Mankind":  Jestocost (Russian for "cruelty"), Crudelta (Italian ditto),
William Not-from-here, Alice Oh, Panc Ashash ("five six" in some Indic
language or other), Femtiosex ("fifteen six"?) Goroke, Arabella Underwood,
Limaono, Kemal Permaiswairi.

--
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.

Reply