Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:R A Brown <ray@...>
Date:Tuesday, September 27, 2005, 14:46
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

Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>