Re: LUNATIC again

Logical Language Group wrote:
>
[...]

 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?

What is the professional, objective, linguistic basis for an Anglicism
being seen as inelegant? The implication seems to be that a Malayalamism
or a Finnishism would be much more elegant.


 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.
>
You make that kind of comment often. I'm very impressed that you're so
deeply into your language that it's shaping your English usage. That's
happened to me in Israel after 12 years of using Hebrew and English side
by side; you must be pretty immersed in a Lojban community for a similar
process to be occuring. Even so, it's usually a good idea to try to
write clearly in the language you're using at the time - even if it's
inelegant old English.


        Shaul Vardi


1. What is the professional, objective, linguistic basis for an
Anglicism being seen as inelegant? The implication seems to be that a
Malayalamism or a Finnishism would be much more elegant. ?

2.