On Mon, 9 Nov 1998 22:39:57 -0500, Logical Language Group
<lojbab@...> wrote:
>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.
The term "relex" seems to be widely used and understood around here, and
doesn't have quite the same connotations that "code" does. (A language =
can
be entirely based on English semantics while having at the same time an
un-English-like grammar. Either an entire language or a smaller part of a
language, such as a single word, can be a relex, but it doesn't make much
sense to say that a single word with inappropriately English semantics is=
a
code.) It's a bit of a gray area, though. Some of my earlier languages
(particularly Niskloz) were entirely too much like English, as I now see
them, but more due to lack of practice than anything else. Still, I
wouldn't go so far as to call it a code.
And I do think that English semantics (if they're recognizably English =
and
not found in other languages) are inappropriate for certain kinds of
languages, especially alien ones (but not necessarily for all languages).
Calling something a relex of English is often a valid criticism.