[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Loglan too can just say "invite sit", though it is true that there is a lot of scope for adding devices to Loglan that would make it more concise and less precise, when the need arises. My point concerns not so much the "brief" "txiq stu" form but the supposedly precise and unambiguous "Go txiq ke zi stu" form. My contention is that the precision and lack of ambiguity can be achieved only by taking this goal as the starting point, and not eschewing formal logic, and then once that goal is achieved, shorter and less precise locutions can be developed. I acknowledge that C is an experiment, but I would predict that by not taking the route I describe, it would fail to meet the goals of being precise and unambiguous. That said, though, I imagine that this is fully consistent with Ceqli's 'market position', as a clearly engineered language, but one that rejects the formal rigour of Loglan in favour of embracing certain natlang models. Its closest conlang kin would be, say, Acadon and Vorlin. -- That's my impression, at any rate. --And. >>> rmay@hidden.email 02/27/02 02:50pm >>> on 2/27/02 7:13 AM, And Rosta at arosta@hidden.email wrote: > Rex: >> Well, what I mean is that I want it to have the potential to be as >> unambiguous as Loglan. Preciseness when necessary. > > I had had the impression that Txeqli had downgraded the importance > of precision that Loglan sets such store by. However, if precision (i.e. > lack of logical and syntactic ambiguity) is a desideratum -- as I think > it should be (for that is the only reason to prefer a conlang to > English) -- then I know from experience that the most practical way > to proceed is to start with the precise structures and then think of > extra devices that can buy concision at the price of loss of precision, > rather than vice versa. Unfortunately, the precision can be bought > only at the price of eschewing natlang models. I can expatiate on > this more if necessary, but will only note at this point that "the potential > to be as unambiguous as Loglan" is not something that can be > bolted on once the bones of the language are already in place; > it must be the bones on which the rest of the language is built. > Tx is sort of an experiment to show that's not the case, actually. When I say, for example, Txiq stu. All it means is invite sit. We human beings just about all know that it means (I) invite (you) sit, but in case it's necessary, the tx can be Go txiq ke zi stu. What I abandoned in loglan was the predicate logic setup, and the _requirement_ for grammatical precision. > -- >PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: rmay@hidden.email > Rex F. May (Baloo) > Daily cartoon at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp > Buy my book at: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm > Language site at: http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Uploadexp.htm >Discuss my auxiliary language at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/txeqli/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: txeqli-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/