Talk:Definitions of loglanghood

From the Logical Languages Wiki
Revision as of 14:11, 18 April 2020 by Maiku (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)