From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:
>=20
> Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 07/06/99 18:21:50 , charles a =E9crit :
> you can define them provided you STOP equating action-and-state with "v=
erb"
> and substance with "noun". try "predicate" and "substantive" instead an=
d
> ponder about what "argument" is. do, be, have.
Yes, I agree. It is good to invent some useful categories,
but not to mistakenly reify them. Those 50 operators/functions
may not "be" adverbs/auxiliaries/classifiers/conjunctions.
I think syntax should be well-separated from semantics,
at least during analysis and maybe by design. So "adjective"
might mean "some kind of noun modifier" but not necessarily
"an inherent or contingent quality of a being or essence".
> > Though the mathematician Couturat had a major role in
> > designing parts of Ido, and Peano (famous for his set theory)
> > invented an auxlang (Interlingua, the first of that name)
> > neither was especially logical in its design or constructions.
>=20
> did you ever wonder why ?
Yes; they knew what they were not doing; Jesperson, de Wahl too.
The goal was "just" to unite Europe linguistically, to prevent
World Wars I and II. Mathematical logic was in no danger.
And logic is in no way incompatible with natural language.
But to further discuss auxlangery here would be dangerous.
Come over to AUXLANG, which is nearly comatose.