Talk:Definitions of loglanghood

From the Logical Languages Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

re neologisms


I'm not sure if it is a good idea for the wiki to use and encourage words which are... newly-minted? unique? dubiously-defined? made-up?

This is ultimately about describing constructed languages, but I'm questioning how constructive freshly constructed words are in the description.

DerSaidin (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

D, I disagree with your notion of ‘dubiously defined’. It's pretty clear what those words mean, looking at their derivation.

The only word I would complain about is ‘monoparsing’, but that term comes with a definition next to it, so I don't see a problem with it in the end.

~uakci 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

  • "loglang" is jargon, but it's our jargon, and it should be easy to figure out by comparing the text in the logo and the domain name.
  • "loglanghood" seems transparent and harmless.
  • re "loglangologizing" (gerund), IMHO "loglang analysis" or "loglang theorizing" would flow more smoothly.
  • re "monoparsing", which is John Clifford's nonstandard term, unfortunately I am not sure the first part of And's definition is correct (Quote: "At minimum this requires that, where sentences are pairings of phonological form and logical form, no two sentences share the same phonological form."). Given what I understand about study of formal language, I would take "monoparsing" to mean simply "(each sentence of the language) having exactly one parse tree (under the language's formal grammar)"; whether or not the parse tree is pairable with a logical form is a separate question. Of course, given that the word comes from Clifford's emails, I could easily be wrong about the intended meaning; at any rate, we should define it and use it carefully IMHO.

-Maiku (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

opinion article

This article relies far too much on opinion to be regarded as encyclopedic in its current state, but I am hoping that it can eventually be developed into a truly encyclopedic survey of loglang definitions. It's an article worth developing IMHO, given that the whole thingamajig -- Wiki, Discord, and everything else -- revolves around the term "loglang" . Toward this end, please feel free to add a section for any definition of "loglang" you might find on the Internet, and feel free to add your own definition in its own section. In the future, perhaps we will move this page to a new location and develop an encyclopedic version from scratch (just a thought) -Maiku (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

About unambiguity

Define "unambiguity" by our demands and ‘external’(experimental) observations: If some people have been affected by a same sentence(have understood it), they should be affected somehow equivalently. As there are nothing outside the sentence deciding the meaning, it's also called "context-free".

It's still possible to have a more refined division here:

  • the result of true/false judgments of sentences by various people should be the same(then we can use a truth table or a model to describe these sentences)
  • the mental state(emotion, moral preference, etc.) of different people should also achieve consistency
  • the epistemic structure/progress of different people should also achieve consistency

Further discuss and definitions of some terminologies mentioned above will lead to epistemology.

I will list some comments on definitions which exists on this site:

  • "syntax-semantic isomorphism": The problem is, we don't know what are the semantic primitives yet. We can only define it by a living, dynamic process of decomposition. Each loglang will be a specific attempt.
  • "monoparsing" and "model-semantics": these rely on a meta-language. Instead of being experimental, they belong to the field of formal semantics.

The way we eliminate ambiguity usually depends on compositionality. We seek for the meaning-deciding factor outside the sentences, and then give the sentence a new 'slot' to place the description of that factor. This is "unsaturated symbol" by Frege or "non-constant symbol"("relation/function symbol") in predicate logic.

However, some loglangers(for example: me) may be more radical on the issue of compositionality and definitions. They not only eliminate ambiguity, but love 'defining' this thing itself. Such preference is close to the Aufbau by Carnap and contemporary conceptual analysis.

--Jiyu8iighx (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Given what you have stated, do you wish to put forward a definition of loglanghood for consideration? On the Discord server, I suspect that most would agree that monoparsing is a part of the definition. Furthermore, there is wide consensus that "monosemicity" is also a part (very roughly defined for a language as meeting these conditions: every word has one meaning, every construction has one meaning, every sentence has one meaning). But no one has written an "official" statement about this, or given all the details, to which everyone has said "yes, we agree with this.".
Re monoparsing and model-semantics: I believe monoparsing is purely a property of a syntax, and does not rely on meta-language.
I am still thinking aboout your other points.
Maiku (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Re monoparsing:
Yes, monoparsing is purely a syntatic property. However, if you want it to be connected to semantics and unambiguity you may appeal to the semantics of the meta-language in the parser, as the consequent structure given by the parser can be an arbitrary choice(even structureless: an integer, or more pratically, a Hash code). Here may be the "monosemicity" you've mentioned. Further more, even if we don't try to interpret the structure, the embedded structure in the parser could work as a formal-semantic meta-language like a set theory which works in the model theory.
What I am emphasizing is: "monoparsing" has nothing to do with the unambiguity if we put semantics(no matter if it's formal) aside.
Re loglanghood:
I tend to define it as "unambiguity", which is, however, closely related to compositionality. I'm still trying expressing that relationship.
Here's a nice page at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Jiyu8iighx (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)