Re: Logical Structure for a Language and Sanskrit

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary
Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "Rex F. May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > 
> > Anyhow, many, many languages have simple, phonemic spelling.  What else
> > about Sanskrit is 'logical' or has 'logical structure'?
> 
> The entire language, IIRC, can be described by a few generative
> grammars.  Given any root, all conjugations/declensions are regular. 
> The same goes for sentence structure.  I don't speak Sanskrit myself,
> but you could hand me the grammars and a list of Sanskrit words, and I
> could churn out perfectly grammatical sentences.  And that's the key,
> every sentence I generate according to those rules would be
> grammatical, and no valid Sanskrit sentence exists such that it could
> not be generated by those rules.  For a fascinating discussion of
> Sanskrit and how generative grammars are useful in AI research, try
> _Digital_Mantras_ by Stephen Holtzman.

Urgh- yet another interesting thing that I shall probably never have
time for in this life.

Followers of this thread may want to take note of postings by TT Arvind
in the thread "Who were the Aryans?".  The ideal of a "perfectly
logical Sanskrit" may be the brainchild of a linguist named Panini.

It's an attactive ideal in its way.  Leibniz thought about the problem,
and Robert A. Heinlein gave it an airing in his short novel _Gulf._ 
Even today, I think, there are people who are working on a language
called "Lojban" (pronounced Loy-Ban) constructed on logical principles.

Given that I myself am not entirely constructed on logical principles,
nor is anybody I have ever met in fact or fantasy, except maybe the
Houyhnhnms,  i think that such a language would not serve all my
linguistic needs.

-- 
Chris Henrich
"Ballerinas are always on their toes.  Why don't they just get taller
ballerinas?"
                -- (?)Joshua Burton