Re: LUNATIC again
|From:||Logical Language Group <lojbab@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, November 10, 1998, 3:39|
>> >Boy, I never thought we'd come up with such a good example of English
>> that is >subject to poor encoding by an unsophisticated conlanger.
>> Anyone still reading >this might look at their conlang to see whether
>> they can distinguish between >the possible senses of "invented" in ways
>> that English cannot. Since English >does not make the distinction,
>> "invented" will usually be taken to mean "done".
>poor encoding, unsophisticated conlanger... criminently, LB, I just hate
>it when you introduce these damn value judgments. You know, natural
>languages encode poorly. Like English!!!
That's what I was saying. The English "invented" suggests completion, and
there is no easy way in English to express the incompletive termination of
I did not mean to phrase it so as to impugn any conlangers, but I can see
by the way you extracted my text that it could be so taken. It was intended
to be an example wherein a conlang that was more a code would have the same
problem as English in lacking the distinction, thus showing what I have meant
by "code". It is indeed a value judgement on my part that copying English
semantics is, umm, inelegant. (Is there a word I can use that conveys my
personal disapproval of such an idea while admitting that others might not
have the same opinion or even the same standards and priorities? How is it
possible to comment on someone's conlang, wherein they have made what appears
to be an inelegant Anglicism, without bringing offense of the sort you seem
to be expressing? In Lojban, I guess I have gottenm used to being blunt - we
use the term "malglico" which means more or less "$%&^# English (like)" for
Lojban usages that copy English semantics inappropriately.