[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike: > --- 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. Actually, I read Mike as saying that he is creating a loglang, and because loglangs are a kind of engelang, he would consider design criteria for engelangs. > 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. I defined the notion, and employed the key word 'engineered'. John Cowan came up with the short form. > 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. I endorse this characterization. The distinction has nothing specific to do with language; any sort of design process can be approached from an artistic or an engineering perspective. If we were people interested in designing buildings, say, we might also split into subcommunities of artists and engineers. > 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. I agree with this. > >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.) Lojban does have less vague ways of rendering "I try to run", as someone has probably pointed out later in this thread. The vagueness of tanru is useful: when the meaning is clear, it saves effort of various sorts, especially on the part of the speaker. [rest of message agreed with & snipped] --And.