Re: what is a loglang?

On Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 06:48 AM, Mark P. Line wrote:

> And Rosta said:
>> 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'.
>
> Wonder why it isn't 'engilang'...
...to keep it disyllabic like 'conlang', 'artlang', 'auxlang' and 'loglang'
  (not to be confused with 'loglan'  :)

So 'engelang' /'EndZl&N/ - of course English spelling disguises that for
the unwarry - *'enjlang' would give a clearer indication of pronunciation
- but is probably unacceptable to most {sigh}

[snip]
> Actually, my next question would be "Why fetishize propositional and
> predicate logic and its analogues?". It seems like there would be a lot
> less impedance matching to do if a logic were chosen that was more like
> language. (No natlang has variables. FOPC quantification does not map
> straightforwardly onto any identifiable natlang phenomenon. So choose a
> logic that gets by without variables and that does quantification like
> natlangs do.)
Possibly because the more well known ones are Loglan derived - but aren't
there any loglangs modelled on other formalized logics?
================================================================
On Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 08:24 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

[snip]
> In my experience the preoccupation with propositional and
> predicate logic and its analogues in certain linguistic
> is ultimately ancillary to the desire to process natural
> language with computers.
It's true that a programming language like Prolog does give certain
advantages in processes natural languages; but to a limited extent. It is,
  however, IMO as a programmer a poor excuse for adopting it as a model for
a _conlang_. Computers should be tools for human convenience, not machines
that force us to obey their 'will'. I get a bit tired of the unthinking
neo-animism that seems to come over humans when interfacing with these
dumb machines.

>  While I think it would be nice
> to be able to speak to my computer I do think it is a
> bad idea to shoehorn linguistics as a whole into the
> desires of "computational linguistics".
AMEN!! In any case, I often speak to my computer - and generally am
thankful it doesn't answer back. If have a _conversation_, I want it to be
with something intelligent, not a plastic & metal machine cunningly
designed to simulate conversation for the gullible.
=========================================================

On Thursday, May 6, 2004, at 08:25 AM, Mark P. Line wrote:

> william drewery said:
>> 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),
>
>
> 1. Logic is an attempt to describe (and usually formalize) the way(s) in
> which humans reason; semantics is an attempt to describe (and usually
> formalize) the way(s) in which humans use language to mean stuff.
Agreed.

> Logic is
> more basic than semantics only if reasoning is more basic than language -
> -
> me, I think they go hand-in-hand.
Yes, I find it too much to believe that there was a time when hominids
were reasoning and that one day it occurred to a hominid that it would be
a good idea to give sound representation to what was going on in her/his
mind. I'm quite the two developments went hand in hand.

> 2. There are all sorts of logics, not just "classical", "standard" or
> "Boolean" logic, many of which some people believe are more useful for
> linguistic semantics than classical logic:
     http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/nonstbib.htm

Yep - I was very skeptical at the statement "Any form of intelligence
would have exactly the same
system of logic we do (Boolean)".  Do we really have such a deep
understanding of our universe that we can categorically state that? I
really wonder if in a few centuries time our descendants will look upon
the logics of early 21st cent. as we view Aristotelian logic today.

I'll take a look at the URL if i get time in College tomorrow.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Replies