14
edits
What is Toaq? (for linguists): Difference between revisions
m
→A very brief history of loglangs: Adding a link on ⟪logical language⟫.
m (add one more heading) |
m (→A very brief history of loglangs: Adding a link on ⟪logical language⟫.) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
In the past half-century, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis has become largely disfavored, and advances in artificial intelligence show us that computers have no trouble engaging meaningfully with natural language, no matter its syntactic ambiguity. Toaq's development, thus, proceeds more for its own sake than that of its predecessors. | In the past half-century, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis has become largely disfavored, and advances in artificial intelligence show us that computers have no trouble engaging meaningfully with natural language, no matter its syntactic ambiguity. Toaq's development, thus, proceeds more for its own sake than that of its predecessors. | ||
Within the conlang community, people [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/logical-language-misconceptions/ seem to disagree] on what a "logical language" is: for some, merely being based in spirit on predicate logic is enough. By demanding of itself a syntax that's fully defined, unambiguous, and yet shaped like that of a natural language, Toaq has set the bar high. Can it be cleared at all? | Within the conlang community, people [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/2022/09/26/logical-language-misconceptions/ seem to disagree] on what a "[[logical language]]" is: for some, merely being based in spirit on predicate logic is enough. By demanding of itself a syntax that's fully defined, unambiguous, and yet shaped like that of a natural language, Toaq has set the bar high. Can it be cleared at all? | ||
== Writing a parser == | == Writing a parser == | ||