![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does the "knowledge representation" section really belong in this article? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topics described. — Gwalla | Talk 19:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page hardly mentions anything about how a logical language operates...
I suspect this article may be defining "logical language" too narrowly. Ithkuil for instance seems to me like a logical language of some sort, though it's not based on predicate logic or another formal logic system. Maybe we need a separate article on Philosophical language that would describe languages like Ithkuil, Ro, John Wilkins' "Real Character", etc.
Ithkuil was deleted once before and is probably going to be deleted again, but I think it deserves a paragraph or so in a more general article on logical or philosophical languages. -- Jim Henry | Talk 01:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Voting has started on the conlang notability/verifiablity criteria at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes. -- Jim Henry | Talk 15:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Almost every reference I've seen to philosophical languages has been to the categorizing or taxonomic languages, not to languages that espouse a particular philosophy.
http://talideon.com/concultures/wiki/?doc=philosophical%20language has a good example
These two languages really don't seem to belong here: "Suzette Haden Elgin's Láadan is designed to lexicalize and grammaticalize the concepts and distinctions important to women, based on muted group theory. Sonja Elen Kisa's Toki Pona is based on minimalistic simplicity, incorporating elements of Taoism."
Does anyone disagree? And, if so, can you give citations to a broader use of the term? -- Jeffrey Henning 05:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This page mentions a Russian lawn experiment, but I was not able to find any reference to "Russian lawn" in Wikipedia or in Google - which of course does not mean that Russian lawn experiments do not exist, merely that they need to be written up.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that this article should be moved to the plural. Anyone else?
Gringo300 ( talk) 06:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
How to pronounce engelangs? [ɛŋ(ə)], [ɛnd͡ʒ(ə)], else? TheDodosaurus ( talk) 18:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Only one citation in the whole article. I am new to editing Wikipedia, but for example a claim that ″ In science fiction, much work has been done on the assumption popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.″
would be good if it mentions some work or links to resource which mentions them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturkesik ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does the "knowledge representation" section really belong in this article? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topics described. — Gwalla | Talk 19:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page hardly mentions anything about how a logical language operates...
I suspect this article may be defining "logical language" too narrowly. Ithkuil for instance seems to me like a logical language of some sort, though it's not based on predicate logic or another formal logic system. Maybe we need a separate article on Philosophical language that would describe languages like Ithkuil, Ro, John Wilkins' "Real Character", etc.
Ithkuil was deleted once before and is probably going to be deleted again, but I think it deserves a paragraph or so in a more general article on logical or philosophical languages. -- Jim Henry | Talk 01:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Voting has started on the conlang notability/verifiablity criteria at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes. -- Jim Henry | Talk 15:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Almost every reference I've seen to philosophical languages has been to the categorizing or taxonomic languages, not to languages that espouse a particular philosophy.
http://talideon.com/concultures/wiki/?doc=philosophical%20language has a good example
These two languages really don't seem to belong here: "Suzette Haden Elgin's Láadan is designed to lexicalize and grammaticalize the concepts and distinctions important to women, based on muted group theory. Sonja Elen Kisa's Toki Pona is based on minimalistic simplicity, incorporating elements of Taoism."
Does anyone disagree? And, if so, can you give citations to a broader use of the term? -- Jeffrey Henning 05:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This page mentions a Russian lawn experiment, but I was not able to find any reference to "Russian lawn" in Wikipedia or in Google - which of course does not mean that Russian lawn experiments do not exist, merely that they need to be written up.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that this article should be moved to the plural. Anyone else?
Gringo300 ( talk) 06:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
How to pronounce engelangs? [ɛŋ(ə)], [ɛnd͡ʒ(ə)], else? TheDodosaurus ( talk) 18:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Only one citation in the whole article. I am new to editing Wikipedia, but for example a claim that ″ In science fiction, much work has been done on the assumption popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.″
would be good if it mentions some work or links to resource which mentions them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturkesik ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)