Re: Latin a loglang? (was Re: Unambiguous languages (was: EU allumettes))

On Saturday, May 8, 2004, at 11:12 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

> Hallo!
>
> On Sat, 8 May 2004 16:44:08 -0400,
> John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
>
>> Ray Brown scripsit:
>>
>>> Latin: tres homines ad duas deas honorandas idola fabricari
>>> desiderabant.
>>> Latin: tres homines ad binas deas honorandas idola fabricari
>>> desiderabant.
>>> Latin: terni homines ad duas deas honorandas idola fabricari
>>> desiderabant.
>>
>> Brilliant.  Maybe Latin is a loglang after all.  :-)
>
> Reminds me... I have just finished reading _Manifold: Space_
> by Stephen Baxter (like most Baxter novels, vast in setting and timespan
> and depressing in mood - lots of callous star-smashing aliens), in which
> it is said that Latin was the most logical of all natlangs, and it is
> hence used to communicate with an alien species.
Good grief! I remember my headmaster (who seemed positively ancient way
back in the 1950s) telling us that Latin was a logical language; but even
as a teenager, I could see the falsity of the statement. I didn't know
that urban myth was still alive.

Of course I'm referring to Stephen Baxter here - I did notice John's
smiley and, in any case, know that John wouldn't make such a foolish claim.

Latin is, of course, in no way a loglang in the proper sense of the word;
it's not a mapping of any formalized logic. But Classical Latin, rather
like the 19th 7 20th cent Greek Katharevousa, is derived from a conscious
engineering of its natlang source. It could be considered a quasi-engelang
- but loglang, no way.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760