Talk:Definitions of loglanghood: Difference between revisions

From the Logical Languages Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(→‎About unambiguity: new section)
Line 31: Line 31:


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) -[[User:Maiku|Maiku]] ([[User talk:Maiku|talk]]) 14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
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) -[[User:Maiku|Maiku]] ([[User talk: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 "schema" by Tarski or "non-constant symbol"("relation/function symbol") in predicate logic.

Revision as of 14:34, 3 March 2022

re neologisms

loglanghood
loglangologizing
monoparsing

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 "schema" by Tarski or "non-constant symbol"("relation/function symbol") in predicate logic.