Talk:Definitions of loglanghood: Difference between revisions

From the Logical Languages Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with " 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? ma...")
 
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:
[[User:DerSaidin|DerSaidin]] ([[User talk:DerSaidin|talk]]) 06:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
[[User:DerSaidin|DerSaidin]] ([[User talk:DerSaidin|talk]]) 06:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


----
<blockquote>
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.
 
<sub>~[[User:Uakci|uakci]]</sub> 10:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
</blockquote>

Revision as of 10:33, 18 April 2020

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.

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