[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
"maikxlx" <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: > > Partially to sort out the hierarchy of goals for my own > loglang, and partially just to kick-start a conversation, I > have composed a list of nine possible design criteria that > might be considered when designing an engelang. > I have two problems with the points you made. First, you seem to equate "engilang" with "loglang" or "logical language"; i.e., a language rigidly based on the principles of formal logic. Also, you state that an engilang must be syntactically unambiguous, but that semantic ambiguity is acceptable. As I understand it, an engilang is simply a language that is completely regular in all aspects of its grammar, including semantics, syntax, morphology, and pronunciation. Using this definition, a loglang may be an engilang, but not all engilangs are necessarily loglangs. For example, my Katanda is an engilang but it is definitely not a loglang. Also using this definition, regularity is essential and exceptions can not be tolerated. Finally, attributes such as brevity, redundancy, and aesthetics may be desirable for an engilang, but are not an inherent part of its nature. Sapir said that all grammars leak. He was referring, of course, to natural languages. In my mind, an "engilang" is simply a language whose grammar doesn't leak. Regards, Rick Morneau http://www.srv.net/~ram http://www.eskimo.com/~ram