Re: what is a loglang?

I'm not sure I would agree with the way logic is being
discussed here
  It seems to me logic is more basic than semantics.
Any form of intelligence would have exactly the same
system of logic we do (Boolean), although it's
formulation may be different, but the semantic gap may
be huge.. especially if there are major differences in
sensory perception
--- And Rosta <a.rosta@...> wrote:
> Mark Line:
> > Some things that popped up in a few recent posts
> made me squirm uneasily
> > and wonder what it is exactly that we all think a
> loglang *is*.
>
> _Loglang_ is polysemous.
> In one sense, it is an obsolete synonym for
> 'engelang'.
> In another less redundant sense, it is strictly a
> 'logic(al) language',
> & I interpret that as being a language whose
> grammatical rules specify
> an explicit mapping from surface (phonological)
> forms to logical
> forms (propositions), with 'logic' understood as
> propositional
> and predicate logic or some analogue of it.
>
> If someone were to ask "Why fetishize logic by
> singling it out so",
> I would respond that it is an especially important
> ingredient of
> the syntagmatics of semantics, and that it could
> reasonably be said
> that by 'logic' what we really mean is the 'syntax
> of semantics'.
>
> --And.


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Replies