[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
"And Rosta" <a-rosta@a...> wrote: > Mike: > > > > Even the most subtle of logical meanings can ultimately be > > expressed using natlangs, given sufficient care on the part > > of the speaker. I suspect that insofar as they work (and > > usually quite well), they must be doing something right; > > when we start to discard language universals to any significant > > degree, I can't help but wonder if we are going astray. > > This, again, is just a feeling on my part. > > Maybe in some idealized version of the world, what you say > is true. But laws and legal contracts are among the most > carefully drafted texts, yet many legal disputes hinge on > logical, semantic and syntactic ambiguities. Hehe, that's quite true. I was overidealizing things. If we were considering only earnest seekers of pure Truth, applying the Socratic method rigorously but without hard feelings, I suppose my paragraph might have been more compelling. > > I am reading quite a bit on the topic, and I am already brewing > > some ideas in this department. Incidentally, have you ever > > done programming in LISP or Scheme? > > No -- I have done pretty much no programming ever. Okay, well, I was thinking about the data structures called "lists" (really trees in disguise) found in these two proglangs and I thought it might be possible to use the concept to properly represent the quantifier scope of predicate logic, and the VP syntax of natlangs, in the same structure. In essence, the logical and syntactical structures of the utterance would be one and the same. Regards --- Mike