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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:54:58 +0100, R A Brown <ray@...>
wrote:
>
>R A Brown wrote:
>> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>>
>>> Hallo!
>>>
>>> R A Brown wrote:
>[snip]
>>>> Interestingly, Loglan & Lojban are essentially prefix-order
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The sketch of Lojban I have here shows an English-like mixfix order:
>>> X1 P X2 X3 ...  How unelegant.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I believe I was in error about Lojban. I does seem inelegant for a
>> loglang.
>
>Yikes!! It seems I was error about Loglan too!
>
>I've just been reading some introductory Loglan examples, and I find
>{quote}
>     * Mi vizka. "I see (something) against (something)." or "I see."
>     * Mi vizka tu. "I see you."
>    .....
>
>If the first argument is missing, the predicate is a command.
>
>     * Vizka mi. "See me!"
>{/unquote}
>
>Maybe senility is setting in, but they look just a tad like English
>relexes. How is this meant to test the Sapir-Worf hypothesis?
I think all the lojbanistanis have flown the coop.

Having looked through the lojban grammar (but not loglan) quite a while
back, I'd say the resemblance is superficial.

>It seems that the argument that precedes the functor is the grammatical
>subject and, as Jörg recently (and correctly IMO) observed, terms like
>subject & object are not appropriate for a language that is supposed to
>be based on predicate-logic.
>
>I was assuming a rather more Prolog-like syntax would be used.
Some of us don't know what Prolog syntax is like. But if loglan *did* use
that type of syntax, it would have to have anticipated Prolog by a good
many years, I believe.

>
>Have I missed something here?
>
>
>--
>Ray
>==================================
>ray@carolandray.plus.com
>http://www.carolandray.plus.com
>==================================
>MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
>=========================================================================

Replies