[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In engelang@y..., Rick Morneau <ram@s...> wrote: > "maikxlx" <maikxlx@g...> 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. I definitely do not equate loglang and engelang and if I conveyed that perception, it might have been sloppy writing on my part. Since And coined the term "engelang" (I think, /'EnjleN/), I'll invite him to correct the following wherever he is so inclined. As per this group's description, an engelang is any conlang whose design is a rational solution to a set of relatively objective design goals. In other words, an engelang is a conlang approached as an engineering problem, and as a term is intended to contrast with "artlang", where the spirit of personal aesthetics and creative exploration dominates. If fact, artlang<-->engelang can be considered to form a scale, at any point along which a given conlang can be placed. The engelanger's approach can be taken with any of a number of conlang types, including loglangs, auxlangs, and MTIL's. Each of these types will emphasize, or moreover be defined by, different design goals. In addition, some goals may not be important at all for some types of engelangs. My purpose was only to compose a general list of all the possible goals. To list the goals particularly inherent to each subtype of engelang in order to contrast these subtypes, would constitute a separate discussion. >Also, you state that > an engilang must be syntactically unambiguous, but that semantic > ambiguity is acceptable. Well, IMHO, a *loglang* should indeed have at least as much semantic precision as your Katanda (more specifically, arguments of the underlying verbal roots should be indicated in NP's, AP's, etc.). However, it is apparent that the designers of Loglan and Lojban did not feel that this level of semantic precision was always strictly necessary, at least insofar as the unqualified "tanru" (compound by simple juxtaposition--an extremely vague construction) is the usual construction of choice, even where an obviously specific predicate-argument relationship is intended. (For example, in Lojban "I try to run" gets rendered as "I am a runner-type-of tryer", where a word meaning "runner" modifies a word meaning "tryer"; i.e. syntactically, "runner" is used as the vague, general purpose modifier in an unqualified tanru. The obvious, intended interpretation is that the predicate underlying "runner" is semantically the x2 (second argument) of the predicate underlying "tryer". In other words, although the syntax is clear what word modifies what, the syntax fails to indicate the real semantic relationship. I gather that you don't think this is the way to go, and frankly, I don't either.) I really didn't want to open up this can of worms so I tried to avoid making any strong claims connecting semantic precision and logicality. Looks like it happened anyway :-) > 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. As I see it, regularity is one of the design goals that will be inherent in most, if not all, engelangs, but I do not believe that it will always be the primary goal. I give an example below. > 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. I agree with you here, even though we may or may not understand engelangs differently. > 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. Well, I agree with you on aesthetics. I might have included ease of pronunciation here, which may be more objective. (The reason I mentioned aesthetics was that I felt it could be added after all the other goals have been accommodated. As a simple example, if everything else is equal, a root like /gvivdu/ might well be rejected in favor of /gwendi/ on the simple basis of aesthetics alone. Granted this choice is a matter of taste, but if one is concerned about the sound of your language spoken, it's worth considering overall phoneme and phoneme combination frequencies. I want my language to be relatively pleasant sounding, at least to myself if not to others; if I can accomplish this without compromising the more important goals, I will try. To repeat, I do agree this is not really an engelang goal--just something to be considered in addition to the real goals.) However, as far as brevity and redundancy, IMO they can't be ruled out as valid engelang design criteria for certain types of engelangs. For any language that is intended eventually to have a speech community, I feel that they are important, arguably vital, considerations. Again, different engelangs will have different goals. If I may give an example where different engelangs may make different valid choices based on different criteria, consider Katanda's choice to render "you" as "tumi" = 2nd person + personal deictic classifier. Now, from the viewpoint of an MTIL, this implementation makes perfect sense in that a slightly simpler MT algorithm is presumably achieved. For MTIL's, regularity trumps other considerations. However, for an auxlang, given the frequency of the word "you", it may make more sense to compromise perfect regularity in order to accommodate brevity by assigning a monosyllabic root. Such language brevity can be engineered, using statistical methods drawn from communication theory. Please understand that the above is not intended at all as a criticism, but rather as the observation that different approaches will be valid for different engelangs. As far as redundancy, in a future post I will provide the details of how I am systematically building a minimal level into my own loglang, if this is of any interest to the group. > 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. I agree that such a grammar is demanded to the extent possible both for MTIL's and for loglangs. However, if I have persuaded you to accept a somewhat broader definition for engelang, then I believe it follows that an ideal auxlang can be an engelang that will not necessarily display such rigor (although it may well display more than most natlangs). I feel that in auxlangs, the considerations of naturalness and universality will dominate, and while regularity and simplicity are extremely important, they nonetheless must be balanced to some extent with brevity. Each individual goal is quite objective. I think it's the balancing of the goals which, probably inevitably, is somewhat of an art. Regards, --- Mike