Talk:loglang: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Reply to to be fixed) |
(Created page with "== Discussion == ''why don't we just call them all "loglans" since that's a generic term?'' nitcion: :Uncontroversially to the LLG and the U.S....") |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Discussion == | |||
''why don't we just call them all "loglans" since that's a generic term?'' | |||
[[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]: | |||
:Uncontroversially to the [[LLG|LLG]] and the U.S. courts, perhaps; but for an incentive not to, I refer you to [[niction|niction]] | |||
[[And]]: | |||
:I think it is useful to reserve ''loglan'' for members of the Loglan family. | |||
:A related term that is useful but unused is ''[[engelang|engelang]]'' or ''engilang'' for "engineered language", which is a little more general than ''loglang'', "based on logical principles". Features like self-segregating morphology are not particularly logical, but typical of an engelang. | |||
:...'''platybau''' ? |
Latest revision as of 11:08, 6 May 2014
Discussion
why don't we just call them all "loglans" since that's a generic term?
- Uncontroversially to the LLG and the U.S. courts, perhaps; but for an incentive not to, I refer you to niction
And:
- I think it is useful to reserve loglan for members of the Loglan family.
- A related term that is useful but unused is engelang or engilang for "engineered language", which is a little more general than loglang, "based on logical principles". Features like self-segregating morphology are not particularly logical, but typical of an engelang.
- ...platybau ?