Re: Re : Malat

> Joshua Shinavier wrote:
> > Natlangs seem illogical to me, but this doesn't have anything to do with
their
> > methods for deriving words -- rather with their syntax, and with the
definitions
> > of words.
>
> In defense of natlangs here, I don't think that any natlang is
> "illogical".  The illogic only comes when you look at it from a foreign
> frame of reference.  Logical and illogical don't necessarily mean
> "conforming to reality" or "not conforming to reality", I'd say that the
> Ptolomeic system was very logical, for instance, given what was known in
> his time.  It was self-consistent, and it fit what was known of the
> universe at the time.  Self-consistency, and conforming to a tradition
> worldview are my criteria for a "logical language", and in that case,
> nearly every natlang is logical, the only illogical ones are the ones in
> the midst of major social upheaval, which have partly assimilated a new
> worldview, and partially retained the old.
Natlang syntax is illogical, there's no denying that.  When I speak of a
"logical" language what I'm referring to is mainly the grammar, not the
world-view reflected by the language.  We appear to be using two different
definitions -- what a shame such ambiguity arises in a language like English,
isn't it?  Bit of an obstacle to mutual understanding :)
The Ptolomeic system has nothing to do with the language it was formulated in,
and so is not relevant to langs, nat or con.


> "We're not obsessed, we're focused!" - X-Philes' motto, by Gizzie
Exactly! :-)

JJS