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

Jeffrey Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:54:58 +0100, R A Brown <ray@...>
> wrote:
>
>>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.
Prolog uses a subset first order predicate calculus Horn clauses'. These
are clauses with zero or one consequent only.

>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. The point is that both are based, i thought, on predicate
calculus in some form or other.
============================================

Tim May wrote:
> R A Brown wrote at 2005-09-26 06:54:58 (+0100)
[snip]
>  > 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?
>  >
>
> 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.
===================================
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.

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

But I thought the idea behind Loglan was to create a language that was
significantly different from natural languages.

[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.

 >
 > 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........
---------------
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.

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

Indeed.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY

Reply