[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John E Clifford, On 11/09/2012 03:57:
*From:* And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> John E Clifford, On 10/09/2012 17:12:As for your complaint about my way of doing things, I don't see what I do that is non-standard or that somehow requires special rules.Which complaint? I haven't complained about your way of doing things.You seem to think I am doing a type II project, which you take as requiring special rules and devices, but which looks to me just like first semester logic.
If you look it as a complaint, then you grossly misunderstood me. I mean, you pretty much got the absolute opposite understanding from what I had intended. My point is that we want different incompatible things from a loglang, so rather than waste time complaining about each other we should instead work on different loglangs.
Yes, I want to know what makes a sentence true (when that is the relevant issue), but surely you want that too. What is the point of sying something if there is no way of finding out whether it is true? (I leave out theological questions for the nonce.)I do want to know what makes a sentence true. But that lies outside the scope of the formal codified language design as I envision it.So, you want an uninterpreted calculus. No problem. But what has that to do with a language, which is meant to communicate, e.g., to tell people what is true?
Natlangs are not formal codified designs, are not uninterpreted calculuses, are languages, and are used to communicate. The sort of loglang I want is like a natlang, but with the grammar codified. --And.