There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Gary Shannon
1.2. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Jim Henry
1.3. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Matthew Martin
2a. Is there a word for this?
From: Gary Shannon
2b. Re: Is there a word for this?
From: Patrick Dunn
2c. Re: Is there a word for this?
From: Gary Shannon
2d. Re: Is there a word for this?
From: René Uittenbogaard
3a. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
From: Leonardo Castro
3b. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
4a. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
From: MorphemeAddict
4b. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
From: Adam Walker
4c. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
4d. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
From: Padraic Brown
5a. Re: THEORY: Practical limit of inflection complexity?
From: Adam Walker
6. logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] VS Na
From: Mathieu Roy
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:47 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are an infinity of finite natural number (and a sentence with
> 1,2,3,etc. words are all possible to make; so there are also an infinity of
> finite sentence). I know this can be hard to understand.
Ah, yes. I remember now! I last studied that in college back in the
60's, and once I got into engineering, we avoided "infinity" because
it has no practical use. (Except as a limit in calculus, of course,
but even there we engineers don't think of limits as "real", because
in engineering everything is of finite size, and nothing is infinitely
divisible, and even calculus is done, approximately, by finite
discrete slices.)
But I still stand by my insistence that there are not an infinite
possible number of USEABLE sentences in English based on my engineer's
limit of 45,000 words for the longest possible USEABLE English
sentence. With a hard and fast upper limit on sentence length the
number of possible sentences in English is finite, and even though it
might be infinite "in theory" it cannot be infinite in practice.
This is the same reason why when I was in grad school I was warned to
take math courses in the engineering department, not in the math
department. The math department taught "the wrong kind of calculus",
and learning the mathematician's calculus could ruin you for
engineering.
--gary
Messages in this topic (53)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:53 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> But I still stand by my insistence that there are not an infinite
> possible number of USEABLE sentences in English based on my engineer's
> limit of 45,000 words for the longest possible USEABLE English
> sentence. With a hard and fast upper limit on sentence length the
> number of possible sentences in English is finite, and even though it
> might be infinite "in theory" it cannot be infinite in practice.
Can we make a distinction between *potential* sentences of a given
language, those allowed by its grammar and semantics (which can
certainly be arbitrarily long if not infinitely long), and *actual*
sentences, that is, sentences produced at some time and place by some
fluent speaker of the language? Maybe "potential" and "actual" aren't
the best possible words, but the distinction seems important, however
we describe it. Intermediately, one may wish to add a third category,
of *realizable* sentences, which are not only grammatically and
semantically valid, but practically possible to say even if they
haven't actually been said or written. I think what Gary is trying to
delimit with his estimate of 45,000 words for the longest sentence one
could utter in twelve hours or so is an upper bound on this
"realizable" category.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (53)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Matthew Martin" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:02 am ((PST))
Note, I'm speaking from an engi-lang standpoint here, assuming we have a formal
grammar of some sort available and that grammar covers all the legal
possibilities, so not elvish, not esperanto.
I think the maximally complex sentence can be identified if you put limits on
repetitions/recursions of a rule. For example, when I wrote my lorem ipsum
generator that generates grammatical toki pona, it generates sentences of a
certain length because I wanted to illustrate each possible rule, but not
illustrate infinite chains of modifiers or infinite recursion, e.g. "The man is
very, very old. The man is very, very, very old"
The maximally complex toki pona sentences without repeating chains of the same
element is about a few hundred words long. It's an interesting thing because
as we take away rules from the list of 20 or so BNF grammar rules, the
maximally complex and maximally long (without repeats) sentence gets shorter
and shorter.
So the grammar, (S)-V-(O) has 4 possible outcomes and (S)*-V-(O)* has an
infinite, but not an infinite if you only allow reapplying a rule twice, so the
2nd grammar is only a tiny bit more spacious than the first. And importantly,
from a language creation standpoint, the infinite spaciousness of the 2nd
grammar adds almost nothing to expressiveness, the grammatical legal power of
being able to have a chain of 1,732 subjects seems sort of useless. I suspect
as the number of BNF rules grows, the length of a maximally complex sentence
(w/o repeating more than 2x) rapidly grows to something longer than any human
is likely to utter, but I'm not sure how big that space needs to be before
people don't feel constrained by it.
Matthew Martin
Messages in this topic (53)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:02 am ((PST))
Working with my conlang machine translation project, I'm playing with
the tagger code and I found a useful way to classify words during the
process of tagging, and I'm wondering if there is a term for this
already.
Consider a template sentence with an empty slot: ___box fell.
Now consider the set of words than can be put in that location in the template:
{ a the my our your his her its their one some this that every each }
I want to say that the set has property X with respect to template Y.
>From the Greek roots for "same" and "location" I came up with
"isotaxis" and called the set "isotaxic" WRT sentence Y.
A different template might generate a different "isotaxic" set:
Sentence template: ___ boxes fell.
Isotaxic set = { the my our your his her its their some these those
many few two }
Is there already a word for this property, and if not, does "isotaxis"
sound right? Or can anyone suggest a better term?
thanks.
--gary
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:11 am ((PST))
Determiner
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Working with my conlang machine translation project, I'm playing with
> the tagger code and I found a useful way to classify words during the
> process of tagging, and I'm wondering if there is a term for this
> already.
>
> Consider a template sentence with an empty slot: ___box fell.
>
> Now consider the set of words than can be put in that location in the
> template:
>
> { a the my our your his her its their one some this that every
> each }
>
> I want to say that the set has property X with respect to template Y.
> From the Greek roots for "same" and "location" I came up with
> "isotaxis" and called the set "isotaxic" WRT sentence Y.
>
> A different template might generate a different "isotaxic" set:
>
> Sentence template: ___ boxes fell.
>
> Isotaxic set = { the my our your his her its their some these those
> many few two }
>
> Is there already a word for this property, and if not, does "isotaxis"
> sound right? Or can anyone suggest a better term?
>
> thanks.
>
> --gary
>
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:04 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Determiner
>
Nope. Consider the template: The box fell ____.
Which set is isotactic to that template?
Maybe: { over down slowly quickly immediately suddenly ... }
When you say "determiner" you have named one SPECIFIC isotactic set.
Clearly the above isotactic set is more like "adverb" than
"determiner", yet "adverb" doesn't map the same semantic space I'm
seeking to map with this template.
And what about the template: The box ____ down.
That isotactic set might include: { falls fell tumbled crashed broke
was ...} Also not "determiner", or "adverb" either. Nor is it "verb"
because "The box spoke down." doesn't work, so the verb "spoke" is not
in that particular isotactic set.
That's why I'm not looking for words like "verb", "noun",
"determiner", ... I'm looking for a term that applies to ALL isotaxis,
or to the concept of isotaxis in general.
--gary
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Working with my conlang machine translation project, I'm playing with
>> the tagger code and I found a useful way to classify words during the
>> process of tagging, and I'm wondering if there is a term for this
>> already.
>>
>> Consider a template sentence with an empty slot: ___box fell.
>>
>> Now consider the set of words than can be put in that location in the
>> template:
>>
>> { a the my our your his her its their one some this that every
>> each }
>>
>> I want to say that the set has property X with respect to template Y.
>> From the Greek roots for "same" and "location" I came up with
>> "isotaxis" and called the set "isotaxic" WRT sentence Y.
>>
>> A different template might generate a different "isotaxic" set:
>>
>> Sentence template: ___ boxes fell.
>>
>> Isotaxic set = { the my our your his her its their some these those
>> many few two }
>>
>> Is there already a word for this property, and if not, does "isotaxis"
>> sound right? Or can anyone suggest a better term?
>>
>> thanks.
>>
>> --gary
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
> order from Finishing Line
> Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> and
> Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "René Uittenbogaard" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:10 am ((PST))
selma'o?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/selma%27o
René
2013/1/18 Gary Shannon <[email protected]>:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Determiner
>>
>
> Nope. Consider the template: The box fell ____.
>
> Which set is isotactic to that template?
>
> Maybe: { over down slowly quickly immediately suddenly ... }
>
> When you say "determiner" you have named one SPECIFIC isotactic set.
> Clearly the above isotactic set is more like "adverb" than
> "determiner", yet "adverb" doesn't map the same semantic space I'm
> seeking to map with this template.
>
> And what about the template: The box ____ down.
>
> That isotactic set might include: { falls fell tumbled crashed broke
> was ...} Also not "determiner", or "adverb" either. Nor is it "verb"
> because "The box spoke down." doesn't work, so the verb "spoke" is not
> in that particular isotactic set.
>
> That's why I'm not looking for words like "verb", "noun",
> "determiner", ... I'm looking for a term that applies to ALL isotaxis,
> or to the concept of isotaxis in general.
>
> --gary
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Working with my conlang machine translation project, I'm playing with
>>> the tagger code and I found a useful way to classify words during the
>>> process of tagging, and I'm wondering if there is a term for this
>>> already.
>>>
>>> Consider a template sentence with an empty slot: ___box fell.
>>>
>>> Now consider the set of words than can be put in that location in the
>>> template:
>>>
>>> { a the my our your his her its their one some this that every
>>> each }
>>>
>>> I want to say that the set has property X with respect to template Y.
>>> From the Greek roots for "same" and "location" I came up with
>>> "isotaxis" and called the set "isotaxic" WRT sentence Y.
>>>
>>> A different template might generate a different "isotaxic" set:
>>>
>>> Sentence template: ___ boxes fell.
>>>
>>> Isotaxic set = { the my our your his her its their some these those
>>> many few two }
>>>
>>> Is there already a word for this property, and if not, does "isotaxis"
>>> sound right? Or can anyone suggest a better term?
>>>
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> --gary
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
>> order from Finishing Line
>> Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
>> and
>> Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:30 am ((PST))
2013/1/18 Jim Henry <[email protected]>:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What are the advantages of speaking a less logical language (a language with
>> grammar rules with a lot of exceptions, a lot of words with ambiguity, etc.)?
>
> [*] -- Esperanto isn't a loglang or engelang in the strict sense, nor
> is it perfectly unambiguous, but I'd say it's less ambiguous than the
> natlangs I'm most familiar with in both syntax and lexicon.
Maybe we should make a distinction between regularity and unambiguity.
BTW, I think that I have already heard someone saying that there is an
advantage of irregular verbal forms as they become more audibly
distinguishable from each other.
For instance, each one of the Spanish expressions
"yo soy, tú eres, usted es, nosotros somos, vosotros sois, ustedes son"
are better distinguished from each other than
"yo es, tú es, usted es, nosotros es, vosotros es, ustedes es".
But I doubt it's a great advantage since many languages work perfectly
well with no person conjugation. Besides, some languages tend to omit
the pronouns as they are implicit in the conjugations, what sometimes
make distinguishability harder again. For instance, in "soy, eres, es,
somos, sois, son", the words "soy", "somos", "sois" and "son" sound
similar and could again be interpreted as a regular verb "so-" with
pronouns postponed:
soy = so-y = {to be} + {I}
somos = so-mos = {to be} + {we}
sois = so-is = {to be} + {you plural}
son = so-n = {to be} + {they}
I wonder if verb person conjugation originated from incorporation of
ancient pronouns...
> Wordplay
> in Esperanto works in at least two ways: using words that sound
> similar to other words (this method is also available in most
> engelangs, I reckon), and words which are phonologically identical to
> other words but have a different parse (this is unavailable in
> engelangs with self-segregating morphology, which I think is most of
> them).
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
> http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:24 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Friday 18 January 2013 13:29:32 R A Brown wrote:
> On 18/01/2013 11:27, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > What are the advantages of speaking a less logical
> > language (a language with grammar rules with a lot of
> > exceptions, a lot of words with ambiguity, etc.)?
>
> Being human? :)
Yes. Which, of course, includes being capable of using metaphor
and word play, which are off limits in a true logical language.
Life is not an application of formal logic, and I have been
feeling for a very long time that human language and formal logic
serve *different* purposes. Language is not about mathematically
proving or disproving assertions; it is about sharing ideas and
emotions.
It does not surprise me at all that the Transhumanist movement
is into Lojban. It just fits those super-rationalist nerds'
pipe dream of superiority over irrational "mere humans"!
On Friday 18 January 2013 14:42:52 Allison Swenson wrote:
> The flippant answer is that it's a whole lot more interesting.
Yep. The loglangs I have seen look very bland and technical;
natlangs and naturalistic artlangs are far richer than those.
Speaking a loglang is live living in an apartment without
wallpaper, lit by naked light bulbs, and with furniture made
of unpolished and unpainted pieces of wood coarsely nailed
together. It works, but there is no *fun* to it.
> The less flippant answers I can think of is that sometimes ambiguity is
> itself a desired feature in language.
Sure!
> Ambiguity allows one to decieve
> without telling untruths, for example. It helps people save face, because
> they aren't forced to reveal their motives or opinions. It allows for
> clever wordplay and subtle references (which I suppose goes along with
> Leonardo's "poetry" response).
Just that.
> Actually, though, I suppose you could lie quite easily in a logical
> language. There's not really any part of natural language that *forces* us
> to lie (or even be ambiguous), is there? We simply choose to do it. So we
> could choose to lie in a loglang as well. Still couldn't decieve without
> lying, though.
Of course, one can come up with an untruthful sentence in a
loglang; but as there is no metaphor, such an untruthfulness is
more easily revealed than in a natlang.
All what I have said above about loglangs, however, must be taken
with a grain of salt, as I am not a loglanger ;)
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:24 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > > > I discussed this elsewhere and those who know more about Star Trek
> than
> > > > me seem to be saying that there is too much already written about
> > > > Vulcans and their space elvish language,
> > >
> > > But the Vulcans of Star Trek do NOT exist.
> >
> > True, and he didn't say they actually exist, but even if they did, there
> > would be no reason to suppose they must speak a logical language (such as
> > Lojban). We know just enough about Star Trek Vulcan culture, physiology
> > and psychology to know that they are not so different from us: they are
> > not logical by nature, but rather by long and arduous training. It may
> > very well be that those Vulcans who are deepest in the art of logic use
> > some kind of loglang as a second language; but I'd doubt that such a
> beast
> > would be their cradle language.
> >
>
> We really don't have any info on the Vulcan language. As far as I know,
> there are only a few lines in the language, developed by Mark Okrand to
> match the mouth movements of the scene as performed in English. I'm sure
> people have analyzed that small bit of data quite thoroughly, but I doubt
> we'll see more of Vulcan language later on.
>
Here is a Vulcan dictionary: http://www.starbase-10.de/vld/
And some grammar information here:
http://www.stogeek.com/wiki/Category:Vulcan_Language_Institute
stevo
>
>
> > Within the ST universe, we also know that Romulans and Vulcans are very
> > close (if not identical) physiologically and they have a shared history.
> > It would stand to reason that the basic nature of the Vulcan language(s)
> > is more like that of the Romulans, barring some sort of radical purge.
>
>
> It is well-established and often stated that the Romulan and Vulcan
> languages are similar, so no purge. Probably both races speak some
> descendant of a language that existed before the split, which would in turn
> be at least a descendant of a language that existed before the Vulcans
> learned to suppress their emotions. Certainly such a language would be
> naturally evolved.
>
>
> > > > but I think real world Vulcans would either convert their natural
> > > > language to a loglan or write one from scratch.
> >
> > They might very well do the latter.
>
>
> That would be very interesting to explore. I've noticed that as Star Trek
> went on Vulcan Logic became less a rationalist ideology and more of a
> religion of sorts. Vulcans always did have incorrect or unusual ideas as
> to what was "logical" (look up the "Straw Vulcan" trope), and as their
> culture got fleshed out through the decades with rituals and mythology it
> seems more and more that Vulcan Logic is very dogmatic and is revered in a
> way that seems quite religious.
>
> As such, it's hard to predict what they would do. Would they decide that
> the "logical" course of action would be to keep their own language, just
> out of pure pragmatism? Would they iron out some irregularities and be
> done with it? Or would the priesthood develop a loglang for themselves?
> Lots of interesting questions that we, unfortunately, can't answer, since
> none of us get paid by Paramount to write about Vulcans.
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:28 am ((PST))
There is a fair amount of Vulcan material in some of the novels and an
explanation of the exact relationship between the vulcan and Romaulan
languages (and how the Romulan language was purposefully "evolved" away
from the Vulcan mother tongue after the Sundering in some of Diane Duane's
books (IIRC). The Romulan Way has quite a bit of Rhiannsu dialogue in it
an a glossary at the back.
Adam
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:23 PM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM, George Corley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > > I discussed this elsewhere and those who know more about Star Trek
> > than
> > > > > me seem to be saying that there is too much already written about
> > > > > Vulcans and their space elvish language,
> > > >
> > > > But the Vulcans of Star Trek do NOT exist.
> > >
> > > True, and he didn't say they actually exist, but even if they did,
> there
> > > would be no reason to suppose they must speak a logical language (such
> as
> > > Lojban). We know just enough about Star Trek Vulcan culture, physiology
> > > and psychology to know that they are not so different from us: they are
> > > not logical by nature, but rather by long and arduous training. It may
> > > very well be that those Vulcans who are deepest in the art of logic use
> > > some kind of loglang as a second language; but I'd doubt that such a
> > beast
> > > would be their cradle language.
> > >
> >
> > We really don't have any info on the Vulcan language. As far as I know,
> > there are only a few lines in the language, developed by Mark Okrand to
> > match the mouth movements of the scene as performed in English. I'm sure
> > people have analyzed that small bit of data quite thoroughly, but I doubt
> > we'll see more of Vulcan language later on.
> >
>
> Here is a Vulcan dictionary: http://www.starbase-10.de/vld/
> And some grammar information here:
> http://www.stogeek.com/wiki/Category:Vulcan_Language_Institute
>
> stevo
>
> >
> >
> > > Within the ST universe, we also know that Romulans and Vulcans are very
> > > close (if not identical) physiologically and they have a shared
> history.
> > > It would stand to reason that the basic nature of the Vulcan
> language(s)
> > > is more like that of the Romulans, barring some sort of radical purge.
> >
> >
> > It is well-established and often stated that the Romulan and Vulcan
> > languages are similar, so no purge. Probably both races speak some
> > descendant of a language that existed before the split, which would in
> turn
> > be at least a descendant of a language that existed before the Vulcans
> > learned to suppress their emotions. Certainly such a language would be
> > naturally evolved.
> >
> >
> > > > > but I think real world Vulcans would either convert their natural
> > > > > language to a loglan or write one from scratch.
> > >
> > > They might very well do the latter.
> >
> >
> > That would be very interesting to explore. I've noticed that as Star
> Trek
> > went on Vulcan Logic became less a rationalist ideology and more of a
> > religion of sorts. Vulcans always did have incorrect or unusual ideas as
> > to what was "logical" (look up the "Straw Vulcan" trope), and as their
> > culture got fleshed out through the decades with rituals and mythology it
> > seems more and more that Vulcan Logic is very dogmatic and is revered in
> a
> > way that seems quite religious.
> >
> > As such, it's hard to predict what they would do. Would they decide that
> > the "logical" course of action would be to keep their own language, just
> > out of pure pragmatism? Would they iron out some irregularities and be
> > done with it? Or would the priesthood develop a loglang for themselves?
> > Lots of interesting questions that we, unfortunately, can't answer,
> since
> > none of us get paid by Paramount to write about Vulcans.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:43 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Friday 18 January 2013 16:17:07 George Corley wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > I discussed this elsewhere and those who know more about Star Trek
> > > > than me seem to be saying that there is too much already written
> > > > about Vulcans and their space elvish language,
> > >
> > > But the Vulcans of Star Trek do NOT exist.
> >
> > True, and he didn't say they actually exist, but even if they did, there
> > would be no reason to suppose they must speak a logical language (such as
> > Lojban). We know just enough about Star Trek Vulcan culture, physiology
> > and psychology to know that they are not so different from us: they are
> > not logical by nature, but rather by long and arduous training. It may
> > very well be that those Vulcans who are deepest in the art of logic use
> > some kind of loglang as a second language; but I'd doubt that such a
> > beast would be their cradle language.
That the Vulcans are so logical not by nature but by training
is an aspect often missed in discussions about them. Such a
culture may have adopted a loglang, but as Padraic says, rather
as a second language, not a native one. Also, if they *had*
adopted a loglang as their native language, it would pretty
quickly have ceased to be a loglang by the kind of changes that
affect natural languages of human-like beings, I wager.
> We really don't have any info on the Vulcan language. As far as I know,
> there are only a few lines in the language, developed by Mark Okrand to
> match the mouth movements of the scene as performed in English. I'm sure
> people have analyzed that small bit of data quite thoroughly, but I doubt
> we'll see more of Vulcan language later on.
There was a web site named, pompously, "Vulcan Language
Institute", by someone named Mark Gardner, but it is long gone
and lost, and AFAIK it was merely a fan project. Gardner had
developed an entire conlang, called "Traditional Golic Vulcan",
which incorporated the few bits of Vulcan that was then in the
canon, but was not at all canon by itself. It did not look
like a loglang to me, it felt much like a human language.
> > Within the ST universe, we also know that Romulans and Vulcans are very
> > close (if not identical) physiologically and they have a shared history.
> > It would stand to reason that the basic nature of the Vulcan language(s)
> > is more like that of the Romulans, barring some sort of radical purge.
>
> It is well-established and often stated that the Romulan and Vulcan
> languages are similar, so no purge.
Yes. Mark Gardner worked that into his conlang; it was similar
in some regards to Diane Duane's Romulan (which is AFAIK not
canon, either - but the only elaborated Romulan conlang we have).
For example, the suffix used to derive language names is _-su_
in both languages, so Duane's Romulans called their own language
_Rihannsu_ and Gardner's Vulcans called theirs _Vuhlkannsu_ or
similar (I do not remember too well).
> Probably both races speak some
> descendant of a language that existed before the split, which would in turn
> be at least a descendant of a language that existed before the Vulcans
> learned to suppress their emotions. Certainly such a language would be
> naturally evolved.
Yep.
> > > > but I think real world Vulcans would either convert their natural
> > > > language to a loglan or write one from scratch.
> >
> > They might very well do the latter.
>
> That would be very interesting to explore. I've noticed that as Star Trek
> went on Vulcan Logic became less a rationalist ideology and more of a
> religion of sorts.
It is! As the third movie shows, they have rituals performed
at ceremonial sites by priestesses!
> Vulcans always did have incorrect or unusual ideas as
> to what was "logical" (look up the "Straw Vulcan" trope), and as their
> culture got fleshed out through the decades with rituals and mythology it
> seems more and more that Vulcan Logic is very dogmatic and is revered in a
> way that seems quite religious.
Yes.
> As such, it's hard to predict what they would do. Would they decide that
> the "logical" course of action would be to keep their own language, just
> out of pure pragmatism? Would they iron out some irregularities and be
> done with it? Or would the priesthood develop a loglang for themselves?
> Lots of interesting questions that we, unfortunately, can't answer, since
> none of us get paid by Paramount to write about Vulcans.
Indeed ;)
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:05 am ((PST))
--- On Fri, 1/18/13, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > We know just enough about Star Trek Vulcan culture, physiology
> > and psychology to know that they are not so different from us: they are
> > not logical by nature, but rather by long and arduous training. It may
> > very well be that those Vulcans who are deepest in the art of logic use
> > some kind of loglang as a second language; but I'd doubt that such a
> > beast would be their cradle language.
>
> We really don't have any info on the Vulcan language.
This is true. I think most of whatever there is is secondary, unofficial
stuff, fan-fic and the like. I have a "Vulcan Training Manual" from the
70s or 80s -- not terribly good as far as conlang description (or
presentation) goes. I think there is even less on Romulan, outside any
novels.
> > Within the ST universe, we also know that Romulans and Vulcans are very
> > close (if not identical) physiologically and they have a shared
> > history. It would stand to reason that the basic nature of the Vulcan
> > language(s) is more like that of the Romulans, barring some sort of
> > radical purge.
>
> It is well-established and often stated that the Romulan and Vulcan
> languages are similar, so no purge. Probably both races speak some
> descendant of a language that existed before the split, which would in
> turn be at least a descendant of a language that existed before the
> Vulcans learned to suppress their emotions. Certainly such a language
> would be naturally evolved.
I think that sufficiently answers the question!
> > > > but I think real world Vulcans would either convert their natural
> > > > language to a loglan or write one from scratch.
>
> > They might very well do the latter.
>
> That would be very interesting to explore. I've
> noticed that as Star Trek
> went on Vulcan Logic became less a rationalist ideology and
> more of a religion of sorts.
Yes. In some respects, they might have been better off leaving it at a
rationalist ideology or philosophy.
> Vulcans always did have incorrect or unusual ideas as to what
> was "logical" (look up the "Straw Vulcan" trope),
Interesting indeed. I guess the real take away message there is "no culture
is ever 100% perfect"!
> and as their culture got fleshed out through the decades with rituals and
> mythology it seems more and more that Vulcan Logic is very dogmatic and
> is revered in a way that seems quite religious.
Yep. Reactionary too, it seems. What with all the devastating wars and so
forth and the near destruction of the planet and culture.
Though it does strike me that when something like logic or reason is
revered as if it were some kind of divine force, and its proponents (Surak
and the like) venerated as saints or gods, it becomes less a flexible tool
for sorting out the universe and more a set of predetermined and inflexible
rules. Quite like how religion has evolved *here*!
> As such, it's hard to predict what they would do. Would they decide that
> the "logical" course of action would be to keep their own language, just
> out of pure pragmatism? Would they iron out some irregularities and be
> done with it?
Dunno. Given the irrationality of Vulcan logic, almost anything could be
seen as "logical" and defended as such.
> Or would the priesthood develop a loglang for themselves? Lots of
> interesting questions that we, unfortunately, can't answer, since
> none of us get paid by Paramount to write about Vulcans.
This is true. Now thát would be a job and a half! An interesting one, to
be sure, but gargantuan as well. Take whatever is known of Vulcan (and
indeed Romulan) language, culture, history and turn it into a unified and
sensible whole...
Padraic
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: THEORY: Practical limit of inflection complexity?
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:31 am ((PST))
Natqgu seems to have a limit of 8 prefixes and/or suffixes.
Adam
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>wrote:
> I have noticed that many languages have some inflections that are not
> really used in everyday speech, being substituted with others (what
> reduces the total number of inflection) or with more analytical
> structures.
>
> Do you think there is a limit of the number of word inflection people
> on the streets can deal with?
>
> Até mais!
>
> Leonardo
>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] VS Na
Posted by: "Mathieu Roy" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:57 am ((PST))
tl;dr: Thanks a lot for all your answers. I take to heart this subject. If
you have more examples of how natural languages can be ambiguous or has been
once in your life where it affected you, I would like if you could share
them with me.
For those with the courage to go through what I wrote, your answers will be
greatly appreciated. And in case I forgot it in some place, I want to make
clear that all of this is In My Opinion.
<<And that's all I'll say because we're too close to auxlang advocacy and
that would require switching to the other mailing list to continue the
discussion.>>
Ok then, I'm changing the subject to: what are the advantages of a logical
language VS a not-so-logical language.
<<I'm guessing you meant "loglang", i.e. logical language?>>
Yes.
<<[...] "Good" has too many definition [...] Therefore, I [...] replaced it
with a word of less potential contention: "necessary".>>
Good idea.
<<The only advantage I see is in poetry.>>
I agree.
<<Being human? :)>>
I was going to ask you to elaborate, but someone else did :)
<<Ray said it best: we are humans. And humans are not by nature logical or
even terribly rational beings (we do try, though!).>>
We also die before 125 years old naturally; is that a reason to not modify
our genes (for example) in order to live longer? I don't think so. I'm
doing this analogy because I don't see how saying that we are not logical by
"nature" is an argument for not being logical?
<<We tend to see what isn't there and come up with nonsensical explanations
for things. A less than logical language that is good at ambiguity and
natural poesy, but that can at need be aligned on a more logical plan is the
best fit.>>
I agree that sometimes ambiguity is good. I think someone that speaks a
logical language should be able to precisely chose how ambiguous s/he want
her/his sentence to be.
[example] For example, if one love someone (else), but one don't know if
s/he wants a serious relationship with her/him, then it is good to have a
word to precisely show that s/he doesn't know exactly how much s/he loves
her/him; so it is ambiguous in the sense that his/her feelings too are
ambiguous. However, I think it would be good (by "good" I mean it would help
people to clearly express there though if they want to) to have more precise
word in order to differentiate different kind of love (in fact, there are
probably some natural languages that do have more words). It is true that
someone could just explain the kind of love s/he feels toward someone, but I
think it would be better (ie. a lot shorter and simpler) to have other words
for some concepts.
<<It's what our own brains and our own culture have collectively and
unconsciously decided works well enough for human communication.>>
I don't know if the following is true, but my French teacher told me that
monks in the past were paid by letters and therefore were adding letters to
some words. That would explain why a lot of words have for example the
letters "eau" pronounces as "o" (bateau, eau, beau, chateau, etc.) or simply
"au" pronounces as "o" (faux, taux, etc.) or silent letter at the end (faux,
taux, etc.) or double letters that are indistinguishable from one letter
(balle, sale, association, etc.) (I just noticed that "association" uses
three way to make the same sound: "ss", "c", "t"; that's pretty dumb IMO) or
that "ph" is pronounces "f". My point is that this might not have been
totally chosen collectively, and there might even be bad reasons. By "bad" I
mean different things. For example, I gave an example of efficiency and
coherency. I will give another example. The etymology of "woman"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman#Etymology) which comes from "female
human" whereas "man" comes from only "human", which is kind of sexism since
"we specify" the gender only for woman. The natural languages sometime stays
impregnated with old values. Another example is the word sexism which can
mean "unequality of sexe" and "the use of the body for a finality". So if
for example it would be good for society to attain equality of sexes, but
not necessarily good to stop using the body of men and women for publicity,
then it will be difficult to do because both concepts are represented by the
same word. And you can be both sexist and not sexist at the same time which
is ridiculous IMO. Another example is the short and long scale that some
languages (such as English and French) have
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales) because different
culture chose differently (It's like driving "left" or "right". There's not
one better than the other, but IMO it would be better to all have the same
way. Well, to be faire this is not a good example because of risk
compensation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation, but you can see
what I mean.). Do you really think there is one advantage to have a language
where trillion can both mean 10^12 and 10^18? I think it is simply illogic,
more difficult to learn, unnecessarily ambiguous, and confusing. Another
example is the "masculine" and "feminine" in French, Spanish and Catalan (to
only name languages I know). It is much much harder to learn than a language
that doesn't assigning a gender to things that don't have one. Even people
that speak such a language as their mother tongue make mistakes. And how
does assigning a gender to things is "more human", "easier to learn for
babies", or even "more poetic"? I cannot think of any advantages of such
aspects of some languages (of all natural languages I know in fact). I can
give more example if someone want. But I would like to see each of these
arguments respond or acknowledge.
<<It may not be perfect, it certainly isn't entirely logical but it works,>>
I don't see how this is an (good) argument. Cooking our food with fire also
"isn't perfect" but "works", but that's not a reason (is it?) to not invent
something better (more efficient; like a furnace). Why isn't the same with
languages? Natural languages and fire might be more natural, but that's it.
<<and it's so easy baby can learn it,>>
I don't think a logical language would be more difficult to learn (as I
mentioned earlier). In fact, it might be the opposite since it's grammar
rules are more regular and logic. They might have a little bit more words in
order to have only one word by definition, but on the other hand, there
wouldn't be synonyms. Why do you think a not-so-logical language would be
easier to learn?
<<and those are two great advantages over the more experimental loglangs
that require intense study and even the 'experts' can't always get right.>>
It is true that some errors might be done in a logical language that
couldn't be done in a not-so-logical language; for example, if there are two
words for "or" (one inclusive and one exclusive), then someone might make an
error when using this word (mixing the two). But I think that saying
something in a logical language with some errors of this kind might still be
more accurate than a not-so-logical language with no errors (and in the end
I think these errors would become as infrequent as for people speaking
not-so-logical language). And I don't think it would be difficult for a
native speaker of a logical language to make the difference between the two
"or" for example. Are there children that speak a logical language as their
mother tongue (in order to verify the validity of invalidity of my claim)? I
think that if someone would study as much a logical languages as its
not-so-logical mother tongue (which isn't the case with these so call
'experts', right?), then s/he would be just as good.
<<The less flippant answers I can think of is that sometimes ambiguity is
itself a desired feature in language. Ambiguity allows one to deceive
without telling untruths, for example. It helps people save face, because
they aren't forced to reveal their motives or opinions. It allows for clever
wordplay and subtle references (which I suppose goes along with Leonardo's
"poetry" response).>>
As I wrote previously in this email, I agree that "ambiguity" can be desired
if it is done on purpose. And to take (again) the example of having more
than one word for "love", the only disadvantage of a logical language I can
see is that for example if X says to Y: "I [word that means I love you, but
I don't know how much] you" and Y respond "but do you [word that means love
as in wanting to be in a long term relationship with you] me or do you [word
that means love as in liking to hang out with from time to time]?" If X
didn't want to precise the kind of love s/he was feeling and didn't want to
tell that s/he didn't want to precise it (etc), then s/he would indeed have
prefer a not-so-logical language in this case (where it would have been less
likely IMO that Y ask a precision since there are no word). (but not Y). So
I guess that if one is the kind of person that likes to hide (and be hidden
from) such things, then s/he might prefer a not-so-logical language. So I
can now understand why some people might prefer to speak a not-so-logical
language. (love was just an example)
<< There's not really any part of natural language that *forces* us to lie
(or even be ambiguous), is there? >>
Well, not "forces" us, but IMO sometimes "strongly encourages" us as I've
shown in previous examples.
<<If so, no. No one really has any need for such a thing. Daily existence
and daily needs are rarely so wanting of logical expression or precision
that a loglang would foist upon it.>>
I disagree. I think it would be helpful for communication to have less
ambiguity. In addition to previous examples, I will add that having two
times 12 hours in a day sometimes leads to misunderstanding and someone can
end up somewhere at the wrong time. While it is true that we can precise if
we mean in the afternoon or morning, etc., we can forget. But in a 24 hours
base system (which some natural languages do use) one cannot forget to
precise it. (and personally, I think 24 hours is still not ideal; something
like 10 would be more useful IMO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time).
<<On the contrary, the very precision and rigorous order so imposed by a
highly logical language would, in my opinion,.>> I don't think a logical
language necessarily needs a rigorous order, and I think it can be both
precised and "precisely imprecise" (depending on what the speaker want to
communicate).
<<only serve to dehumanise or denaturlise the balanced chaos of ordinary
life>> What do you mean? How does it dehumanise? Why don't you want it to be
denaturalised?
<<In any event, natural languages (and of course my primary experience here
is English) are entirely capable of any reasonable amount of logic,
precision and order needed by anyone for any purpose. We in general are just
too lazy to engage in such logical speech in a consistent manner.>>
I agree. It is sometimes too difficult to say something in a logical way in
a natural language, so that most human, being lazy, don't do it.
<< If the costs of switching languages were zero, and the only difference
between natlangs and loglangs were the regularity of the grammar and the
polysemy of the words in the lexicon, then there might be very little
advantage in sticking with messy, irregular natlangs. Some other posters on
the thread have mentioned poetry; it's possible to write poetry (and do
other forms of wordplay) in an unnaturally regular and monosemous conlang
(the many volumes of poetry published in Esperanto[*] are proof of that),
but I'll concede for the sake of argument that it's somehwat more difficult
than in the the typical natlang. >>
I agree.
<< But the costs of switching languages, or even adding an additional
language to the existing mix, are pretty high; and most loglangs (or
engelangs more generally) differ from natlangs in many other ways than
regularity and monosemy. Many of them, including the best known examples
Loglan and Lojban, aim at perfect syntactic unambiguity, and have other
features which render them much more difficult to learn than most other
languages, if not entirely unlearnable. >> I agree that it is difficult. But
I think it is useful (and fun), so I encourage everybody that has the time
to do it. But I'm not saying we should teach a logical language in high
school right now. I think there's still a lot to do/research before reaching
this step. And if it turns out that Loglan and Lojban really are too
difficult for the average human, than it wouldn't be a good idea to teach
these languages to kids, but this doesn't apply to all logical languages.
<< [*] -- Esperanto isn't a loglang or engelang in the strict sense, nor is
it perfectly unambiguous, but I'd say it's less ambiguous than the natlangs
I'm most familiar with in both syntax and lexicon. Wordplay in Esperanto
works in at least two ways: using words that sound similar to other words
(this method is also available in most engelangs, I reckon), and words which
are phonologically identical to other words but have a different parse (this
is unavailable in engelangs with self-segregating morphology, which I think
is most of them).>>
Interesting!
<<BTW, I think that I have already heard someone saying that there is an
advantage of irregular verbal forms as they become more audibly
distinguishable from each other.>>
If it is/was true, then a logical language would need different "suffix" at
the end of verbs in function of pronouns. But these suffixes should be the
same for all verbs (except if you find a *logical* reason for not doing it).
<<The flippant answer is that it's a whole lot more interesting.>>
In the end everybody is (or at least should be IMO) free to speak the
language they want (except maybe in court?). So if you think that a logical
language is "better", then learn one, otherwise don't. But I am happy to see
that there are other people that want to learn (and even are learning) a
logical language; so that there will be other people I will be able to speak
with and have more meaningful conversations and stop feeling like a human
that can only speak a dog language (that's an hyperbole).
*I just read the last email on the tread, so I will add my respond to them
below*
Hallo conlangers!
On Friday 18 January 2013 13:29:32 R A Brown wrote:
> On 18/01/2013 11:27, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > What are the advantages of speaking a less logical language (a
> > language with grammar rules with a lot of exceptions, a lot of words
> > with ambiguity, etc.)?
>
> Being human? :)
<<Yes. Which, of course, includes being capable of using metaphor and word
play, which are off limits in a true logical language.>>
I disagree with the metaphor part. A logical language could have a word that
means "like" and implies that we are about to make a metaphor (except if you
define that a "true logical language" can't, then I wasn't talking about a
"true logical language"). But for the word play, I kind of agree, and
personally I would prefer that (what's the advantage of word play? Why do
you like it?), but there's still the way Esperanto does it as someone else
said.
<<Life is not an application of formal logic>>
Right. You can still say "I want to bang that chix" (which sounds irrational
for me) in a logical language, it's just that it won't be ambiguous and will
not have stupid grammar rules.
<<and I have been feeling for a very long time that human language and
formal logic serve *different* purposes. Language is not about
mathematically proving or disproving assertions; it is about sharing ideas
and emotions.>>
I agree. By logical languages I didn't mean to remove words that represent
emotions for example. In fact it's quite the opposite, I'd like to add some
(see my argument about "love"). I think a logical language would help us
share our ideas and emotions more accurately. By a logical languages I don't
mean mathematic or something like that.
<<It does not surprise me at all that the Transhumanist movement is into
Lojban. It just fits those super-rationalist nerds' pipe dream of
superiority over irrational "mere humans"!>>
It also fits many other purpose. Don't judge a tool by a minority of its
user.
<<Yep. The loglangs I have seen look very bland and technical; natlangs and
naturalistic artlangs are far richer than those.
Speaking a loglang is live living in an apartment without wallpaper, lit by
naked light bulbs, and with furniture made of unpolished and unpainted
pieces of wood coarsely nailed together. It works, but there is no *fun* to
it. >>
I'm not saying we should remove the paint and the wallpaper, I'm just saying
we should repair the plumbing and the holes in the wall.
<<Of course, one can come up with an untruthful sentence in a loglang; but
as there is no metaphor, such an untruthfulness is more easily revealed than
in a natlang.>>
I agree that a not-so-logical language is very often better to people that
like to lie and be lied.
FINAL THOUGH: If there were no natural languages, how would you create one
and why? Do you think it would look like our natural languages and why?
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
