natural languages etc

[Edmund Grimley-Evans <cbmvax!uunet!RZ.UNI-SB.DE!dfkihueg>]

> >  We haven't yet addressed one other, more devastating problem:  does
> >  'bangu' exclude computer languages, mathematical language, etc.
>
> I vote against this.  I'd like even formal languages to be bangu.
> I se bangu Prolog and Lisp, for example.  (Does a computer se bangu a
> language if the language has been implemented for it?)

I, as a computational linguist, can assure you that the use of the same
word to refer both to natural languages (eg English, Esperanto) and to
formal languges (eg First Order Predicate Calulus, Lisp) has caused
masses of confusion, misunderstaning and "Denkfehler".

My recommendation: Gloss "bangu" as "natural/human language". Use a
lujvo (with "bangu" as last element) to refer to formal languages.

The `real' languages are those used for general-purpose inter-human
communication. The same word was later extended by analogy to cover the
formal languages invented by mathematicians and computer-scientists.
The analogy is however a very weak one! Formal languages and natural
languages are very different things.

Let's get the terminology straight. I believe the following terms are
now generally accepted in English:

(*) language: a natural language or a planned language.

(*) formal language: a formally defined set of strings of symbols with
a formally defined semantics.

(*) natural language: a language used for general-purpose communication
between humans (intelligent lifeforms, if you prefer!).

(*) planned (natural) language: a natural language whose form was
primarily designed consciously.

In the case of planned languages, it is important to note two things:

(1) There is a continuum between highly planned languages (such as
Esperanto) and highly unplanned languages (eg Igbo). Modern Norwegian
or Indonesian lie somewhere inbetween the two extremes.

(2) There is a continuum between planned language projects (eg Glosa)
and planned languages proper (eg Esperanto). Volapuek and Ido lie
somewhere between the two extremes. Some authors divide planned
languages into three major categories: projects, semi-languages, and
full languages. Only Esperanto has attained the third category. About 5
languages got as far as the second stage (Volapuek, Ido, Interlingue,
Interlingua, Latine sine flexione). There are thousands of projects.

Lojban is probably still in the project-stage, but it seems to have a
real prospect of reaching the "semi-language" stage.

One of the very interesting features of Lojban (definitely the most
interesting feature from my point of view) is that it is syntactically
a formal language while semantically (and therefore in total) a natural
language. I don't know of any other serious project with this feature.

=======================================================================
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS                              dfkihueg@rz.uni-sb.de
=======================================================================