Re: loglang syntax (was: brz, or Plan B revisited (LONG))

Hallo!

R A Brown wrote:

> Jeffrey Jones wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >But if loglan *did* use
> > that type of syntax,
>
> My understanding is that James Cooke Brown intended Loglan's grammar to
>   be based on predicate calculus logic.
>
> > would have to have anticipated Prolog by a good  many years, I believe.
>
> Sure - JCB started work on Loglan in 1955, and Prolog was developed
> sometime about 1972. I doubt very much whether either had any effect on
> the other.
Certainly Loglan cannot be influenced by Prolog for sheer chronological
reasons, and it doesn't seem as if Prolog was influenced by Loglan
(other than the Prolog designers saying "We can do better than Loglan").

> [snip]
>
> Tim May wrote:
> > R A Brown wrote at 2005-09-26 06:54:58 (+0100)
>
> [snip]
>
> >  > Maybe senility is setting in, but they look just a tad like English
> >  > relexes. How is this meant to test the Sapir-Worf hypothesis?
> >  >
> >
> > That's very strange.  This is TLI Loglan?
>
> Yes, it is - in a version known as Loglan 3.
>
> >It goes against what I remember about Lojban syntax, at least.
>
> That's what I thought - it also goes against what I had expected of
> Loglan also.
Yes.  It is simply inelegant.  The Loglan syntax shows an intrusion
from the notion of "subject", which is, as I mentioned earlier,
hardly appropriate to loglangs.

> ===================================
> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>  >
>  > Jeffrey Jones wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >>On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:54:58 +0100, R A Brown <ray@...>
>  >>wrote:
> [snip]
>
>  >>>Maybe senility is setting in, but they look just a tad like English
>  >>>relexes. How is this meant to test the Sapir-Worf hypothesis?
>  >
>  >
>  > This of course raises the question: how does one test it at all?
>
> Indeed.
Hence, I'd rather put "hypothesis" in quotes here, because a hypothesis
is by definition testable.

>  > Have children grow up with Lojban as L1, and see how they think?
>  > Hardly practical.  Anyway, I think the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is
>  > so thoroughly misguided that we need no testing of it to know
>  > that we can safely toss it.
>
> I agree. One just has to see how the rise of computing and digital
> technology has changed English to see it's people that shape & change
> language, not t'other way round.
Yes; how can language be a mental straitjacket when we can readily
coin new words for new concepts?  Perhaps this was what distinguishes
us from _Homo neanderthalensis_ and the others that died out: not merely
having language, but having languages with *open vocabularies* which
could be readily extended.

There are numerous examples for language *reflecting*, rather than
determining, the thought patters of their speakers.  The worst example
are the Nazis, who coined lots of euphemisms for the gruesome things
they did.

>       Otherwise, I guess, we would all still
> be hunter-gatherers.
Indeed.

> But I thought the idea behind Loglan was to create a language that was
> significantly different from natural languages.
Yes.  And that's part of the problem.  The loglangers, just like the
inventors of the 17th-century (and later) "philosophical" languages
or the disciples of "General Semantics" a few decades ago, take part
in the snark-hunt for a "perfect" language that is superior to human
natural languages.  The latter, of course, are the way they are
because of the way the human mind works, and don't really need such
kind of "improvement".

> [snip]
>  >
>  >>I think all the lojbanistanis have flown the coop.
>  >
>  >
>  > I don't know that idiom.  What means _to fly the coop_?
>
> Gone - run away - flown off - disappeared.
I see.

>  >
>  > But I cannot help but notice certain similarities between loglangers
>  > and auxlangers.  The same dead-seriousness about their proposed
>  > languages, and the same sectarianism.  I have read in
>  >
>  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
>  >
>  > that the main reason for creating Lojban (which essentially seems
>  > to be mostly a relex of Loglan) was to evade copyright claims on
>  > Loglan (which were ultimately defeated in court, but at that time,
>  > Lojban had already been developed).
>
> Yes, some of the stuff I have read contains the same sort of narrow
> sectarianism that one finds so often in Auxland - and the battle over
> whether the word 'Loglan' could be trade-marked or not (which had to be
> resolved through the courts) is too similar to some inter-auxlang
> disputes. Sigh - but........
Exactly.

> ---------------
> Henrik Theiling wrote:
>  > Hi!
>  >
>  > Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> writes:
>  >
>  >>...  But I cannot help but notice certain similarities between
>  >>loglangers and auxlangers.  The same dead-seriousness about their
>  >>proposed languages, and the same sectarianism.  ...
>  >
>  >
>  > Booo! :-)
>  >
>  > I disagree.  I am prone to finding loglangs and engelangs
>  > 'nice' (sic!) myself, but I'm not dead serious about my own conlangs
>  > that have some traits of loglangness.  They exist for my pleasure.
>
> Glad to hear that - and I am sure there are many other loglangers, such
> as Rex May with his Ceqli, who have similar outlook.
True.  There are people around who simply have fun with loglangs,
and don't take them too seriously.  There are also people who simply
have fun with outright auxlangs.

> [snip]
>  >
>  > So don't be too serious about finding loglangers dead serious! :-)
>
> Indeed.
Yes.

Greetings,

Jörg.