Lainchan Language?

We should create a secret language, like how some of us used to do when we were kids. Just something fun to communicate on other places on the internet in our own way. It might also add a new unique aspect to our little lainchan internet community. I think it should be made up of English words or some other language, but arranged differently, like this example. <----------------------- What do you guys think? Should we make ourselves a new "lainguage"? sorry

no we should not. We should speak a different language that is not widely used or use some form of encryption.

>>10386 no actually I changed my mind. >According to @FBI using the terms ‘based’ or ‘red pilled’ are signs of ‘Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism this will be funny to see our silly made up words in an fbi blacklist.

We should create our own Lain programming language

>>10388 Great idea. What do you think about just having a language that compiles to C?

lmao that sounds stupid. i'm into it.

>>10388 I thought that was LISP.

>>10385 Why not just use Esperanto?

>>10392 (cont) You can start learning with https://lernu.net and (for example) Tim Owen's Complete Esperanto book. Unua Libro can be interesting to read later (imo).

We should create our own language

Or just invent some words and expressions here and there. Make up some slang if you will. Slang word... when you stay up all night fixing tech issues it's a bluenight (bsod) When someone's the kind of person to keep diving into rabbitholes and evolves in obscure topics and platforms, he's an anglerfish (deep sea) As for a saying... there's one already, isn't there...

Yeah, like saying soycaf instead of fecal matter or kicking dead whales down the beach. >>10392 Isn't that model already outdated? Lol imagine having spent months or even years becoming fluent in an obsolete version. At that point I'd just divert any effort into aquiring latin. Wait a minute... latin.. lain.. Omnes amoris lain!

>>10396 soykaf and is like kicking dead whales down the beach are word filters though

>>10397 They were originally word filters, I sometimes type it intentionally now though

>>10397 Yet you're using these terms and phrases, even if inadvertently. Quocunque ierit, omnes conexi.

I still think an obscure programming language would be more fun or maybe just do some actual cryptography.

Nadsat and Al Bhed immediately spring to mind.

lainchan should have more insane filters. it would also filter out some of the annoying users we have gotten

>>10400 how about brainfuck? >>10407 nadsat is rad, the sweet spot between comprehensible enough to understand with some exposure and complete unfamiliarity

Yeah - that sounds dumb and fun! Even if its not very broad or all-encompassing, at the very least it would be some extension of lain-related slang. Maybe it would make sense to change more rules up like grammar and word order, but it also could be fun to let it be more free-form. Now I guess we need to make up some words!

>>10419 Brainfuck is too straight forward and ordinary. We need to create something even crazier and more pointless. We'll then build an OS on it and call it Cope-Land OS. What ever happened to Lain OS anyway?

>>10424 sounds like a good idea I think I can make a logo

>>10393 sage doesn't work here

>>10385 Something like toki-pona? https://devurandom.xyz/tokipona/

if you want to make a language just friggin do it its not hard, if you have something and its cool then maybe some of us take a look at it but dont be dumb and make a borang esperantido nor doggy bona clone. all these things inevitably require a lot of arbitrary decisions and its not super great for design-by-comittee type planning, but if you'd enjoy it go for it and maybe people gib input if ur unsure about something.

>>10392 >>10393 I start learning esperanto every couple of years, but keep quitting after losing motivation since I have nobody to speak it with. I'd start learning again and join a lainchan esperanto group if komencantoj (spelling? Been a while since i last studied esperanto) were allowed. >>10432 mi sona toki pona. mi pilin e ni: kulupu Lainchan li toki mute e sona nanpa e sona pi ilo nanpa la, toki pona li ike tawa ona. toki Inli: I know toki pona. My feeling is that because the Lainchan community frequently discusses math and computer science, toki pona is a bad fit for them. toki pona is fun and nice but not good for discussing technical matters. Making a tokiponido designed for technical discussion could be fun

>>10407 >>10419 Ymnekrd tnuukc dryd wjuugc y tuppo etay. Myehlryhhanc cruimt pyttefyt mega drec vnus huf

id be keen to learn any of these if there was a group learning it together to be honest, i dont have much interest in learning a conlang just to write my diary in it

>>10435 Po Puk, dryd'c jano runnuncruf ehtaat, ur so pnudranc.

>>10385 using lainchan related slangs and words outside of lainchan would be a super cool and subtle way to recognize other lainons actually... only problem would be if the terms actually start to spread. i'm into it though, let's make uo some fuarrrking words!!!

lainchan language? more like lainguage!

I've already created a nearly perfect language, much better than any other conlang or anything you guys are going to come up with. And I'm not going to tell anyone about it till I'm rich and famous.

>>10468 I'm going to make my own country, and we're going to speak the language.

>>10385 That's a good idea, honestly, but posting the key or guide on a glownigger data dump site would defeat the purpose.

Hello folks. Not only am I a lainon, but also a degree linguist who has done autistic conlanging as a hobby since middle school, so I think I can be of help here. In terms of "threat model" for the language as some lainons have expressed concerns about, I don't think it's viable for us to organize some sort of sup3r sikrit collaboration channel, because it's just not possible to maintain anonymity while vetting folks convincingly. We'll just keep it here. Consider the lainguage a fun exercise and good for a joke that nobody else will get on some other imageboard. The steps I always go through when planning a language are checking my real-world inspirations with regards to the various modules of natural language (phonology, syntax, etc.) I'll go down the list. # Phonology & Orthography I discuss phonology first because I don't see a point in designing one. This would pose constraints on other aspects of the language, and who's going to be speaking this soykaf? Nobody. By exclusively writing the language, this means that graphemes (characters or combinations of characters) are now the basic unit of meaning rather than phonemes, which are distinct units of sound (lots of asterisks but don't worry about that); in other words, the phonology IS the orthography. That all being said, I don't think that we should discard the notion of human readability just because we are no longer constrained by phonology. Or maybe we should, if you think "dn3jjr1kh59dlakgl14" looks like a cool sequence you'd like to parse, please say so! In my opinion, I think we should limit ourselves to a minimal latin character set for universality: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz A la lojban, I think we could also include basic punctuation such as .!?, but perhaps these can be used as grammatical markers of some sort; consider that ? could be the marker which turns a sentence into a yes-no question, like rising intonation in most language or more pointedly the Japanese "ka" particle. That gets into grammar stuff, so I'll save it for later. I think that numerals (1234567890) can stand alone as the signifiers of numbers, rather than having to give them a 'phonological' form as well (i.e. in English you can write 'one' or '1'). I think it also makes sense to define a "syllable structure", although they aren't really syllables because they have no phonological form. Consider the following formula: (C)V, where C is any character of [b c d f g h j k l m n p q r s t v w x y z], and V is any of [a e i o u]. So acceptable syllables would be V or CV. This gives us 110 possible syllables to work with and makes syllable boundaries unambiguous, i.e. 'aomabe' can only be parsed as 'a.o.ma.be', rather than say 'aom.ab.e'. I think that is a decent amount, but we could increment it by putting y and/or w into the V set if we want to. We could also add digraphs if we really wanted, like 'dz' or 'ch' into the C set, but I'm not given to that option personally. It follows that we can assign meaning on the syllable level, e.g. the character 'b' doesn't mean anything on itself, but 'ba' means 'animal', 'bec' means 'plant', and so on. However, we could also assign some meaning on the grapheme level as well, so we might say that 'b' encodes 'living thing', hence 'ba' and 'bec' both indicate organisms. Given the limitations this could impose, I am skeptical, but I think we could devise a smart categorical system all the same. In any case, we will inevitably need to make use of compounding, so we might say that 'breast-animal' means a mammal, 'sea-animal' means any marine animal, and 'sea-breast-animal' means 'marine mammal', and so on, just for an idea.

Language is infinite use of finite means, so there is any number of ways that one could devise any aspect of this system, so I'm really just putting ideas out there from what comes to me. I'd love to hear you guys' input. The reality is that the form (writing system) with which lainguage is expressed is actually just going to be a wrapper, a function which takes the logic & lexical items as input and outputs letters in an order, in other terms an aesthetic shell. This is less important than what the input is. # Design It's clear to me that, it being lainchan and not Tolkien wannabes, we would want to veer in the direction of a logical, engineered language, think programming. We can go truly outside of the box here. Imagine the following natural language statement: The dog hit the ball. Let's ignore the tense and determiners for now. We have three predicates: DOG, HIT, and BALL. We know that HIT is a predicate (you might think of this as a function or what have you in programming) that maximally takes two arguments: x (the hitter, the agent of the event) and y (that which is hit, the 'theme', which is often but not always expressed as an 'object' in leyman's terms). Part of the definition of HIT is that x is an agent, and y is a theme. (HIT:(AGENT:x)(THEME:y)) We then can think of DOG and BALL as single-argument predicates themselves, e.g. x (that which is DOG/that which is BALL). See: (HIT:((DOG:x):x)((BALL:x):y)) Consider the following English sentence: The ball was hit. In predicate logic, it looks like this: (HIT:((BALL:x):y)) BALL is still the theme or 'logical object' of the predicate HIT, but English has to undergo a syntactic operation using the passive voice in order to delete the AGENT (or x argument) of HIT, including the auxiliary verb 'was' and elevating the theme (BALL) to the subject position. You can't just say 'The dog hit', or 'hit the ball', as this always leaves open the question of 'who did the hitting?' or 'what was hit?'. It is not correct to say that this HIT predicate is fundamentally different to the HIT predicate of before, as the same event (hitting) is taking place; we understand this intuitively. This is referred to as a valency-changing operation, and all human languages have this one way or another. It preserves the predicate whilst removing one or more arguments. In lainguage however, we don't have to be restrained by what valency-changing operations are available. We could include as many arguments as we so please. But how do we discuss an event without arguments? Is this possible? I contend yes: (DANCE:∅) You could think of this statement as saying 'There is dancing'. It might be the bare assertion that dancing takes place or exists, with no need to include an agent to the predicate, although you could: (DANCE:((MAN:x):x)) 'The man is dancing' You could bury the assertion of dancing into yet another predicate. How about this: (GOOD:(DANCE:∅):x) 'Dancing is good' Compare with: (GOOD:(DOG:x):x) 'The dog is good' (GOOD:(GOOD:∅):x) 'Being good is good' / 'Goodness is good' (GOOD:((MAN:x):x)) 'That the man dances is good' We could take from thematic relations/the theta criterion the sorts of roles that could be includes in an event-type predicate, which in natural language is usually expressed in verbs. For a list of thematic roles, you might look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_relation. It's not that deep, but it should give you an idea. For instance, consider this very involved predicate: (PLAY:(AGENT:x)(THEME:y)(EXPERIENCER:z)(INSTRUMENT:v)) (PLAY:((JOHN:x):x)((WONDERWALL:x):y)((MARY:x):z)((GUITAR:x):v)) Or in other words: 'John played Wonderwall to Mary with a guitar.' There are of course a lot of factors to consider such as tense, aspect, mood, specificity, real-world reference, and so on, which might be dealt within this framework for our lainguage. Consider definability through set theory; a dog is a member of the set of all canines, which is a member of the set of all mammals, which is a member of the set of all animals, which is a member of the set of all organisms... and so on. Predicates are really just expressing set membership: (ORGANISM(ANIMAL(CANINE(...):x):x):x) == 'dog' This could be expressed through compounding in the orthographic surface form. Just a smattering of ideas. Please lainons, lend me your autism.

Coul design it around gematria. Include delimiters that look like typos, stylistic choice, etc.

>>10954 >>10955 If this was ever going to happen this is definitely the place where it starts. Super promising ideas and I love the idea of a conlang with the syntactic structure of a programming language or mathematical statement. It has a very lain-like autism to it that I think just might work. I'll think on it and see if I can come up with anything to contribute

>>10959 I've returned and I'm going to begin dumping my brainstorm. First, a few words on what we want out of a lainguage. I think that the idea that this should somehow be cryptographically secure or a well kept secret is fundamentally ill advised. If the lainguage is going to be actually used by anyone, then it will need to be human readable and easy enough that it is worth learning just to post on one imageboard. Otherwise who is going to bother? I foresee this mainly as a filter for tourists and a way to make newfriends lurk for a while. If I wanted to send secret messages, I wouldn't do it on a public imageboard. Now for some ideas. I've only ever thought about making a conlang before, so feel free to let me know which ideas are retarded. Building off the idea of >>10954 that graphemes can encode high order concepts, I think that nouns could have prefixes that indicate some general concept of that noun. I think these categories should be perceptual and not logical because language is fundamentally a means to describe human thought. My current thought is something like a - intrapersonal, existing within one's own mind e.g. happiness, determination, obsessiveness, confusion, clarity e - interpersonal, existing as a construct upheld by multiple minds e.g. love, friendship, power dynamics, conglomeration, zeitgeist i - biological, having to do with life, not necessarily living e.g. tree, dog, leaf, corpse, excrement o - conceptual, existing as an idea e.g. time, math, language, logic u - subhuman (physical), objects which a person can manipulate, as opposed to [o] e.g. pebble, stapler, chair, phone, computer v - superhuman (physical), objects which are too small, large, distant, or intangible to interact with, as opposed to [i] e.g. molecule, mountain, house, star the actual vowels are at the moment assigned at random, so interchange them as you wish, but I do feel that the v-u dichotomy is a fun nod to chanspeak like "sovl" there are a few interesting things you can get out of a system like this. For example, [u](fish) would refer to the food item that comes from the sea, [i](fish) would refer to the animal which breathes using gills, and [o](fish) would refer to the uncountable substance like [o](fabric), [o](sand), or [o](water). [e](blood) is family, [i](blood) carries nutrients, [o](blood) is the red stuff that pours from harmed creatures, and [u](blood) is a red liquid that is measured or contained (thus countable). One could even combine two of them to give a more specific context, especially between (aeio) and (uv). A [ue](business) is a mom and pop shop where you could befriend the owners and get a free donut when you stop by, while a [ve](business) is a world-spanning megachain that will trample any union in its path. An arm is [ui], a brain cell is [vi], but if someone says something stupid then you are losing [o](braincells). splitting this into multiple posts so you can easily indicate which idea you are responding to.

>>10962 Another idea i think would make the language feel more engineered and logical would be to use delimiters to declare relationships instead of just separating words. The part in >>10955 about (GOOD:(DOG:x):x) reminded me of set notation. < could be the delimiter for something being a member of a set. So instead of saying the dog is good, you say that the dog is a member of the set of good things. [i](dog)<[so](good). This would essentially be a means of creating adjectives. >Side note: In this case the inclusion of [s] in the prefix indicates we are not talking about the concept of good but the set of things the concept good describes. [si](dog) is the set of all canines. Consonant symbols in the prefix would be syntactical rather than conceptual, but I couldn't be bothered to lay out a remotely complete list of possible syntactical indicators that could be necessary. Also note that the inclusion of [brackets] around the prefix and words in (parentheses) is only included for the sake of clarity. The eventual language, as I imagine it, would substitute original words (here) and simply treat the first vowel or consonant-vowel pair as the prefix. Then we have < for member of or subset of, > for set containing or superset of, and = for being the same as or being an identical set. I may also tentatively put forward # for completely exclusive sets and / for sets which have some overlap. [so](dog)<[so](good) -> Dogs are fundamentally good. [se](people I have slept with)>[ou](your mom) -> Your mom is one of multiple people I have slept with.* [se](twitter users)=[sa](internet drama knowers) -> Only twitter users care about the latest internet drama. [sa](professionals)#[se](Haskell users) -> There are no professionals who love Haskell. [sv](Houses)/[so](homes) -> Some houses are homes, but some houses are not homes and some homes are not houses. *Note that [o] indicates that I am referring to your mom conceptually as the butt of a joke rather than literally as a person. To refer to a person with [eu] would be very rude.

>>10954 >Or maybe we should, if you think "dn3jjr1kh59dlakgl14" looks like a cool sequence you'd like to parse, please say so! Not to that extreme, but I have found that I'm a fan of clusters that aren't common in English ("cxu" from esperanto is a favorite). I think we should also consider drawing inspiration from SEL and lainchan culture for some of the vocabulary. For example, "lain" could be the root word for person since we're all lain here, "navi" could be computer/calculator, "accela" could be the root word for drugs, "iwakura" for family. "soykaf" becomes bad. We could also build the root words in a way that they form lain related words. For example "eria" could be the root word for any place of business, and "cyb" could be something like the concept of recreation or partying, thus "cyberia" would become club. maybe "kaf" means "bad" and "soy" means "excessively" thus "soykaf" means "shi-tty" We could shorten borrowed words where appropriate to fit whatever consonants and letter we choose to allow. Maybe "accela" becomes "acela" or "cela" or "iwakura" becomes "waku." I'll also suggest stealing some of toki pona's grammar. toki pona's grammar is basically "(<context phrase> la) <subject> li <verb> (e <direct object>) (<preposition> <prepositional phrase>)." which makes it easy to learn and makes the grammar mostly unambiguous (aside from words that are both prepositions and context words, and aside from x li y having some other meanings I'm omitting here) I'd suggest we steal the idea of having explicit markers to indicate which section of the sentence we're in, but add some extra markers to clear up some ambiguity that toki pona has. perhaps something like * eq = between subject and descriptive phrase, "cylain eq lain" = "party person is a person" * xe = between subject and verb phrase, "lain xe cy" = "person is partying" * at or @ = between verb and direct object "lain xe cela at lain" = "lain xe cela @lain= "person is drugging someone" * pyp or | = start of prepositional phrase * fi = end of context phrase or something. Some inspiration in those markers is from bash, but I'm not married to any of this.

Use desuchat or whether ppl use on desudesuchan use where you encode messages into images so only people u have shared basically the equivalent of a pgp key with can read ur posts. It works on a load of chans.

>>10962 I'm liking the semantic categories you've picked out here, how they have been associated with the vowels, and how efficiently it permits derivation as in [u](fish) vs [i](fish), but also how more figurative applications of this system can give rise to some very interesting interpretations. I do think that the latter can be a bit hard to grasp though, like if I read [ue](business), I feel like there would have to be a lot of context for me to understand the meaning without past understanding. Maybe more careful constraints could be applied. For instance, you list 'o-braincells' (consider that a provisionary way of writing this); we understand braincells to be i. microscopic and ii. biological, but that here you are referring to braincells in the figurative sense, hence the o- marking, I imagine. However, the identity of "braincells" is not changed, in other words you're still referring to that thing known as braincells, it's just that the narrative intent of the statement is not literal. This might be better resolved through some marking on the sentence level, i.e.: figurative(I am losing vi-braincells) While the above statement is false (it is not true that I am losing braincells), this does not mean that the narrative intent is disqualified. Now if I stated this not in the figurative, let's say I added a new specifier: declarative(I am losing vi-braincells) Then this indicates that I am stating this as a fact and that it is my intention that this be interpreted as such. The important part here is that figurative() and declarative() are specifiers of speaker intent (the pragmatic part of an action), but that these specifiers do not impact the truth value of a statement. In both the figurative and declarative, this statement is false regardless (unless you actually are losing braincells at the time). By disambiguating this aspect of narrative intent from the derivational system, I think that the latter can be defined far more concisely. Think of it as separation of concerns, best practices in programming. Notice that I have phrased declarative() and figurative() in a similar fashion to predicates in my discussion above; this is because they might essentially be interpreted as one-place predicates which take a complete statement as an argument. Interesting! As to the definitions of the vowels themselves, maybe we can clean up house a bit. I see natural pairs in intrapersonal-interpersonal, subhuman-superhuman, but biological & conceptual holds me up a bit. I feel as though if something is biological, it is logically physical. Here are some ideas: We can think of natural supersets to these proposed categories: Abstract(conceptual, intrapersonal, interpersonal) Concrete(biological, subhuman, superhuman) I propose the following subsets as well, which contain the natural pairs within these sets: Abstract(conceptual, Personal(intrapersonal, interpersonal)) Concrete(biological, Inanimate(subhuman, superhuman)) In order to make this fit, we might rethink of conceptual as "non-personal": all those abstract functions which are "real", and not an abstract function of humanity, which still fits with what you listed: time, logic, math, and so on, are all external to humanity; the issue of it referring to uncountable substances such as blood or water I resolve in a bit. We could also rethink biological as "animate", but in so doing we would have to remove non-animate but still biologically-associated things such as manure into the inanimate set; I contend that this captures a more important distinction (the presence of animacy) if you ask me. So maybe it would look like this: Abstract(non-personal, Personal(intrapersonal, interpersonal)) Concrete(animate, Inanimate(subhuman, superhuman)) I'm really quite fond of the intrapersonal-interpersonal distinction, that being between the product of one mind and the product of multiple minds. It's pretty good. As to subhuman-superhuman, while it's a pretty cool one too, the question arises whether the distinction is fundamental enough. If I make a really big or really small teacup, is it fundamentally different to a teacup that is of regular scale? The identity of that object is still that of a teacup, I feel. Maybe we could encode the aforementioned substance distinction here: Concrete(animate, Inanimate(countable, uncountable)) So like you mentioned, blood or water (liquids) is not countable; you don't "bleed a blood", and when you separate a quantity of blood into halves, you have two quantities of blood. This is in opposition to a teacup-- when you separate a teacup into halves, you do not have two teacups, you have two shards of a teacup. It strikes me that it is strange to think of a countable-uncountable distinction with regards to organisms (animate things). In natural language they are almost always considered countable (one pig, two pigs); maybe in this sense, the lack of subcategorization for the animate set is even more illustrative. Let me know your thoughts on that. This leaves us with this: Abstract(non-personal, Personal(intrapersonal, interpersonal)) Concrete(animate, Inanimate(countable, uncountable)) So, with regards to the use of "v" as a part of the vowel grapheme set, I don't mind it, and it's actually been used historically by linguists and in standard orthographies in the past (no, not just Latin), though it's rather unpopular now. When used, it usually transcribes the schwa sound. Anyways. Maybe I can tie in phonology (excuse me) here, because in the international phonetic alphabet (and in the writing of many languages), there are a couple natural sets of vowels: (i e) are "front unrounded", (o u) are "back rounded", and "a" is a central low vowel (asterisk but unimportant). The schwa (here v) is actually also a central vowel, but pronounced mid (as opposed to high or low), so they vary in verticality. Pic related for a chart of this. While this language lacks a de jure actual phonology, we can take inspiration from these natural classes as to how we apply the vowels in our labels: Abstract(v, Personal(e, i)) Concrete(a, Inanimate(o, u)) All in all, there are some derivational advantages to this too. Consider that o(count)-water is a discrete body of water (a lake, a puddle, a pond, an ocean, that amount of water in your cup), whereas u(uncount)-water is the substance itself. You could think of e(intrapersonal)-love as the sensation of love one feels inside, whereas i(interpersonal)-love is a relationship between two lovers. Let's take things further and try to tie derivational system together with predicate expressions. Follow with me on this train of thought in the next post here.

I have a logical form (HIT:(AGENT:x)(THEME:y)) 'x hits y'. I need to represent on the surface level this predicate, i.e. make an actual sentence. What I need to represent is 1) the predicate itself (hit), 2) the roles that this predicate takes (it takes two roles, an agent and a theme) and finally 3) the args themselves that are being assigned these roles (x and y). We could to express the roles (no. 2) of the predicate as affixes attached to the surface form of the predicate (no. 1), and the args (no. 3) as separate elements of the sentence: logical form: (HIT:(AGENT:x)(THEME:y)) surface form (what is written): hit-agt-thm x y translation: 'x hits y' You could sub in actual words now (ignore the lack of noun prefixes here, it's for demonstration): surface form (what is written): hit-agt-thm dog ball translation: 'dog hits ball', or 'The dog hits the ball', or whatever We could say that the order in which arguments follow the verb (hit-agt-thm here) reflects the order in which the "role suffixes" are applied to the root (hit). So for instance, if we swap the order of the suffixes, then the dog receives the theme role because it comes first: surface form: hit-thm-agt dog ball translation: 'ball hits dog' You could even reverse both to achieve the same meaning, but with a different word order: surface form: hit-thm-agt ball dog translation: 'dog hits ball', or 'ball is hit by dog' If we subscribe to this proposal for syntax, this makes some but not all syntactic markers you propose in >>10965 redundant. But actually, I'm very open to doing the reverse. What if instead of marking roles on the verb, we mark it with these particles which precede elements? surface form: hit agt ball thm dog translation: 'dog hits ball', or 'ball is hit by dog' I think both of these methods have their advantages and disadvantages. I'll discuss this towards the end of my post. Consider (FLY:(AGENT:x)) 'x flies'. We could satisfy its agent argument in a sentence: 'fly-agt pig' = 'pig flies' I propose that you could also satisfy the internal argument of a predicate with one of these derivational vowels, turning it into its own constituent, thus: 'a-fly-agt' = 'organism that flies' = 'flier (animate)', approximating "bird", or "fly", or any organism that can fly at all The logical form looks like this, where 'a' means most precisely 'member of the set of animate things', and satisfies the role AGENT: (FLY:(AGENT:(a))) 'that member of the set of animate things which is the agent of flight' o-fly-agt = 'countable thing that flies' = 'flier (inanimate)', approximating 'plane', or any flying machine of some sort (FLY:(AGENT:(o))) 'that member of the set of countable inanimate things which is the agent of flight' Try it with other roles, even: o-hit-inst = 'countable thing that is used to hit' (HIT:(INSTRUMENT:(o))) 'that member of the set of countable inanimate things which is the instrument of hitting' = 'weapon'? I think this amounts to a pretty neat metaphor for objects in the programmatic sense, as it defines objects (nouns) by their functions(/methods, whatever). I think we could use a mix of loaned roots while defining most nouns on the fly like this. A problem arises here when we comparing suffix vs particle syntax. If we would like to follow this derivational methodology, then I wonder how we could make the two sides meet. Maybe we could use the suffix method for derivation, but the particle method for statements, i.e.: 'hit agt o-fly-agt thm tower' = 'A flying-machine hits a tower' Actually, I think that looks pretty cool. I like that. We could say that 'agt' (the particle) and '-agt' (the suffix) should have the same written form, the only difference being that one is a suffix and the other stands alone, preceding what it is marking. The particle is used to assign roles to arguments of that statement's predicate, whereas the suffix is used to assign a thematic role (agent, theme, instrument, etc) to the argument (thing that takes on that role) which fulfilled by the vowel prefix. This seems pretty sick nasty. Don't forget we could have a pre-predicate marker with scope over the whole sentence for narrative intent: 'figurative(hit agt o-fly-agt thm tower)' = 'A flying-machine hits a tower, figuratively speaking'

Finally, I really like your use of set expressions to adapt equational sentences (X is Y, X is not Y, etc.), and the notion of explicitly marking the difference of set vs. set member with s-. We should totally use that. In natural language, this would translate as a "generic" or "gnomic" statement as you describe, i.e.: 'hit agt so-fly-agt thm tower' = 'Flying-machines hit towers' I think to capture this universally, we should obligatorily add the derivational prefix to all nouns, regardless of whether they are derived or root/loans. So, "lain" would have to appear as "a-lain". Maybe we could use a delimiter that isn't a hyphen for the prefix, maybe a'lain or a.lain. That's merely an aesthetic consideration. Going by how you used and describe 'good, it could be interpreted that 'good' is in other words a noun v(non-personal)-good meaning 'good set member'. I really like that. Rephrasing it with my revised vowel notation: sa-lain > sv-good 'The set of people is a member of the set of all good things', 'People are fundamentally good', or just 'People are good' The one thing that doesn't sit right with me is that I don't think v- here captures the universality of the statement, as v- is used to mark non-personal abstract things (concepts) in the current (one I proposed before) derivational vowel system. The above statement essentially says that a set of animate things is a subset of conceptual things, which I don't think comes together semantically. To remedy this, I suggest that we introduce a new prefix in line with the other as a universal set. I think this lets us capture even newer things. Let's say this symbol is w for now, we'll really have to figure this soykaf out at some point. I would rephrase the above as this: sa-lain > sw-good 'The set of people is a member of the set of ALL good' This has the advantage of giving us an optionally low level of specificity. Consider this: sw-good 'The set of ALL good things' w-good 'A member of the set of ALL good things', 'a good thing' sa-good 'The set of animate good things' a-good 'A member of the set of animate good things', 'a good organism' You could derive things on and on in that fashion. Some examples from what you provided restated with my current ideas: so-houses / so-homes 'The set of houses has intersection with the set of homes' // universality seems inaccurate here, unless youre including 'homes which are animated' and so on in the assertion sa-professionals # si-haskellusers // where i = interpersonal, originally [se](Haskell users); dunking on haskell users by declaring them a construct of our collective imagination is pretty good, but if you wanted to be literal you might say sa-haskellusers (animate things which are haskell users)

>>10388 it's absolute soykaf but i was working on a lisp dialect named navi a bit ago https://github.com/ImNotJahan/Navi

>>10969 >>10970 >>10971 Many thanks for the feedback linguist anon. I'll clear up a few things that I probably didn't explain well enough here, but I'm ready to let go of the ones that may not work very well. Firstly, pertaining to the subhuman/superhuman dichotomy. I think that I had a few overlapping concepts for what this should mean in my head which made my description incoherent. The foremost was the notion that there are some things a human can interact with and some things they cannot. In a videogame, the subhuman objects would be the things you could pick up and move around, and the superhuman objects would be the map, the skybox, etc. If one human acting alone can exert their influence over it, then its subhuman. Then with respect to size and distance, the idea was whether or not it could be observed or understood without the aid of tools. Taking your example of a teacup, it would continue to be subhuman unless it became so microscopic that I could no longer see it or feel it between my fingers. A teacup the size of an amoeba would be superhuman. In the other direction, once your teacup becomes large enough that it could be one of those roadside tourist attractions it is once more superhuman. Finally, if a large teacup was in orbit around earth it too would be superhuman. A lot of this comes down to my briefly stated philosophy from >>10962 that these categories should have their boundaries drawn from the perspective of a human observer rather than some objective function. To me, things like DNA or comets will always exist as a categorically different set of objects from tables and chairs. These things are all made out of the same physical matter, and they all follow the same laws of physics, but the subhuman objects exist to me in a tactile sense, while the microscopic and astronomical can exist to me only as concepts, despite their physical nature. There is a fundamental difference between the way I interact with pens and keyboards and the way that I interact with roads and mountains and walls. Even though I could probably punch a hole through the drywall in my house, I don't see it the same way that I see the papers I could punch through. I can see how this becomes arbitrary pretty quickly, but I also think you can get some really poetic interpretations out of it. When I defined these two I put physical in parentheses with the thought that these prefixes would only indicate physicality when used alone, and would act as modifiers when used alongside non-physical prefixes. Hopefully the subhuman vs superhuman business makes a little more sense now. Some other cool expressions that you can make with this: superhuman-intrapersonal could refer to emotions that the bearer is incapable of controlling, such as overwhelming anxiety or blinding rage subhuman-intrapersonal would then refer to frustration that is kept in check or concerns that one dismisses subhuman-animate might refer to tamed or domesticated animals, or bugs that pose no threat to a human. the superhuman-animate could then be lions, rhinos, elephants, highly venomous snakes, but also bacteria, cells, diseases, etc. I personally find categorization into sub/superhuman pretty straightforward, but you may take that with a grain of salt seeing as I came up with it. As for the poetic potential I mentioned earlier, imagine the difference between subhuman love, which is built on dates and transactional kindness and worrying about how to split the bill, and superhuman love, where it seems you were destined to meet, soulmates, made by the gods for one another. To capture that kind of distinction in a two letter prefix is, I think, pretty cool, and an opportunity to allow for some distinct expressiveness that you can't get with English. Sort of like those words from other cultures that "have no English translation". Secondly, to clear up some of the countability stuff, I mentioned that some animate creatures are uncountable like fish and deer. In retrospect this was just me carrying over strange rules from English. It seems that many livestock that were gathered in such quantities that it wasn't reasonable to count them, were treated as uncountable just like water or sand. Think sheep, swine, deer, elk, fish, fowl. Obviously none of this needs to, and I would say ought not to, carry over into a language which is designed to feel engineered and logical. If my argument for the subhuman/superhuman dichotomy compels you to reinstate it, then I would see uncountability denoted by "v", in the sense that it is an abstraction of the concrete. I also think that superhumanity could still work double time for counability in the sense that you can't really hold a fistful of water, but you can hold and manipulate a unit of water like a cup or a bottle. The issue there is with those bodies which are both countable and not manipulable, like a lake. This also might be resolved with a flag, which I'll get to in a second post. Thirdly, some clarification on the choice of certain categories. That dunk on Haskell users was a typo. My intention was to indicate that Haskell users are self-identified and that the state of being a "Haskell user" is a construct of one's own mind. Although, I will concede that even that is a bit of a stretch, and categorizing them as animate would make more sense. I would, however, push back against your criticism that [vi](braincells) and [o](braincells) are referring to the same thing. In my opinion, a [vi](braincell) is a microscopic cell found in the brain, while an [o](braincell) is a metaphorical unit of intelligence. To lose [vi](braincells) would mean having some degenerative disease like Alzheimer's, while losing [o](braincells) is like losing "intelligence points". The non literal nature of the statement is implied by the [o] marking. I think these ideas may be better unified by the construct of flags, which I will discuss in my next post.

>>10973 Again drawing from computer concepts, my thought is that we might treat our prefix modifiers and verb arguments as flags in the same sense that bash functions contain flags. There are two types of flags, which I can't recall the name of, but the first accept arguments and the second don't. All of the no-argument flags are grouped together, and then the argument flags are laid out with their assigned values. They typically have one-letter names which are phonetically related to their meaning. In the language, I would see this as having the no-argument flags as prefixes, and then any argument flags denoted afterwards. We might distinguish between flags and words with capitalization, since we needn't use it for traditional grammatical purposes. For example, if I made a function "hit" with attributes A for agent and T for theme, ball hits dog would be written: hit -A ball -T dog A flag could easily be excluded to merely say "dog is hit": hit -T dog Now lets create some no-argument flags. we'll say that S makes it into a set. Then the set of dog hittings is: S-hit -T dog But what if I want to create the set of agents which hit dogs? I propose that we introduce $ as the symbol for the creation of a "doer". In english, the suffix -er has a similar function. A "farm-er" is one who does the action "farm". In this format farmer would be written as: farm -A$ Then the set of farmers is: S-farm -A$ The set of dog hitters is: S-hit -A$ -T dog This could allow for less orthodox constructions like: harm -T$ = "victim" Of course $ is just a placeholder for now, any symbol could be used, but I think it should be one that draws attention as non-alphabetical for legibility purposes. There technically isn't any issue with having the same letters for the prefix flags and the element flags, but the idea of A represent animacy before the word and the agent after the word makes me uneasy. The spaces and dashes are mainly there for clarity, so you can remove them to get something more cryptic looking. For nesting, I think it would be more fun to use something other than parentheses. Both of these changes are in service of the idea that this language should look very foreign and confusing to outsiders, but whether or not that is worth sacrificing ease of reading for people who can understand it is something I'd like your feedback on. For now I am going to use ' to mark the start and end of a nested element and , to delimit elements of a nested list. I'll make some progressively more complex examples. AflyA$ = "animate flier" hitA'OflyA$'Ttower = "inanimate flier hits tower" hitA'OflyA$'T'tower,pentagon' = "inanimate flier hits tower and pentagon" S'SAlain/S-hitA$Tdog'#SAgood = "none of the people who hit dogs are good creatures" I think that with that last one I should clarify that we are intersecting the set of people with the set of dog hitters, and then referring to that set. This could be written with or without the S outside of the ' ', but I think including it would be formally correct. I would envision that our list prefix flags would look something like this. noun categorization V, E, I, A, O, U syntax S - the set of _ - literal _ - figurative _ - countable _ - etc. verb tense _ - past _ - present _ - future _ - etc. and then you will end up with like four letters at the beginning of each item denoting abstract information about it. I'll put some more stuff together later, but for now I'm going to sleep. wishAmeTyouG'Vnight < Sgood'

>>10973 Responding here first, other post in the works. Good points! On what you said with regards to the sub/superhuman distinction, I'm understanding now that it is more on the basis of human interactability (you describe as "manipulability"), whereas I had been conflating it with scale, which while often a key factor contributing to the status of manipulability is not the sole basis for it. I think I'm content with that, but I do think that a countability distinction should be codified in our grammar. Consider: Conceptual things (you marked as "[o]", I marked as "v" and called 'non-personal') are abstract and as a set inherently uncountable. Animate things are concrete and as a set inherently countable (if we make it the set of organisms exclusively). Superhuman & subhuman things are concrete, but some concrete things are countable (a bar of soap), whereas other things are not (soap itself). The substance of soap is not the abstraction of a quantity of soap, I would say, so I would not label it with "v". Soap as a substance is manmade to begin with, so it could be said that it is in concept subhuman, as it is manipulable. So the substance of soap might be categorized as concrete, subhuman, but uncountable. Within the set of concrete things, there are superhuman countables (mountains, lakes), subhuman countables (teacups), superhuman uncountables (non-solid matter, like air or water), subhuman uncountables (solid matter, like soap or metals). I think this is enough to justify an explicit marker of countability for the concrete subsets of superhuman and subhuman. I will get to that idea in a bit. Here are some much-needed formalisms going forward: "S" 'set-of' "V" 'conceptual/non-personal' "E" 'intrapersonal' "I" 'interpersonal' "A" 'animate' "O" 'subhuman' "U" 'superhuman' Where V,E,I are said to be 'abstract sets' and A,O,U are said to be the 'concrete sets'. Where 'element' is a word root, a word is a noun iff (if and only if) it has: - A 'set vowel' (one of V,E,I,A,O,U) prefix preceding the element - A 'set-of' prefix preceding the element - Both, which are arranged (SET-OF)(SET VOWEL)element A noun which is defined by (=has as prefix) a set vowel alone is understood as 'X which is member of the Y set', where X is the element and Y is the set denoted by the set vowel, ergo "Acanine" is read as 'CANINE which is member of the ANIMATE set'. This is paraphrased as 'animate canine' A noun which is defined by both set-of and a set vowel is understood as 'subset of all X which are members of the Y set', where X is the element and Y is the set denoted by the set vowel, ergo "SAcanine" is read as 'subset of all CANINES which are members of the ANIMATE set'. This is paraphrased as 'all animate canines'. A noun which is defined by the set-of prefix alone is said to be 'set of all X', where X is the element, ergo "Scanine" is read as 'set of all CANINES'. This is paraphrased as 'all canines'. "Scanine" has the proper subsets "SVcanine", "SEcanine", "SIcanine", "SAcanine", "SOcanine", "SUcanine". Set vowels can be compounded by prepending one to another. A noun defined by two or more is understood as 'X which is a member of Y set (which is subset of the N set)', where X is the element, where Y is the set denoted by the rightmost set vowel, N is the set denoted by the next rightmost vowel, and the phrase (which is subset of the N set) repeats for every non-rightmost set vowel. The rightmost set vowel is referred to as the 'head set vowel', and represents the most proximate and thus semantically significant set. In this way, "OAcanine" is read as 'CANINE which is member of the ANIMATE set which is subset of the SUBHUMAN set'. This is paraphrased as 'subhuman animate canine', perhaps signifying 'dog', in opposition to "UAcanine" 'superhuman animate canine', signifying 'wolf', or any 'undomesticated canine'. Given the nature of set vowel compounds, I don't think a sequence like "SOSAcanine" is logically salient. So we can define our noun template as thus: (SET-OF)(((...)SET VOWEL)SET VOWEL)element Back to countability. Its representation is arbitrary, but for now at least I say we prepend "*" to set vowels representing uncountable subhuman or superhuman sets, and assume that unmarked represents that the noun is countable. So: "O" 'countable subhuman', ex: "Osoap" 'quantity of soap' "*O" 'uncountable subhuman', ex: "*Osoap" 'soap' "U" 'countable superhuman', ex: "Uair" 'quantity of air' "*U" 'uncountable superhuman', ex: "*Uair" 'air' I think that this could even be productive for metaphorical purposes within compounds where the head set vowel is from the abstract set V,E,I. Take: "I" 'interpersonal', ex: "Ilike" '(the phenomenon of) friendship' Compounding with countable U or O could signify an actual (more concrete) instance of an abstraction: "UI" 'countable superhuman interpersonal', ex: "UIlike" '(an instance of) friendship (particularly one which arises organically)' "OI" 'countable subhuman interpersonal', ex: "OIlike" '(an instance of) friendship (particularly one which arises with conscious effort)' Compunding with uncountable U or O could then signify some degree, intensity, or scale in some form of an abstraction: "*UI" 'uncountable superhuman interpersonal', ex: "*UIlike" '(degree/intensity of) friendship (particularly one which arises organically)' "*OI" 'uncountable subhuman interpersonal', ex: "*OIlike" '(degree/intensity of) friendship (particularly one which arises with conscious effort)' Again, here with a conceptual "V": "V" 'conceptual', ex: "Vtime" '(the phenomenon of) time', c.f. 'I think Vtime is pretty interesting.' "UV" 'countable superhuman conceptual', ex: "UVtime" '(a unit of) time', c.f. 'How many UVtimes are left on the clock?' "*UV" 'uncountable superhuman conceptual', ex: "UVtime" '(amount of) time', c.f. 'How much *UVtime do we have?'

>>10974 This post is really making it come together; let's keep with the flags concept, I think it's pretty neat. I like what you have done with using $ to signify the basic operation of nominalization (turning something into a noun), and that you can apply to roles that are not just agent, as with your "harmT$" 'victim' example. I'm gonna take the definition of a noun I gave in my previous post and do some housekeeping here. In the definition, I said that a noun must have a set vowel, set-of, or both. For the sake of consistency, I belive that a noun derived with $ must also fall under that definition, ergo when applying $ you would also add a prefix to it, so "harmT$" wouldn't stand by itself. So, "AharmT$" 'animate victim', or "OharmT$" 'countable subhuman victim' (so, a piece of damaged property for instance), and so on. Here's a definition: "$" is a derivational element which is given as an argument to a flag, deriving a noun which is defined by the role which that flag assigns and the event which the flag is in. There's also a distinction to be made between nouns describing events, and nouns describing 'things'. An event is a predicate and its arguments, given to flags which assign roles, so: "hitAballTdog" 'Ball hits dog' is an event. The predicate is "hit", its arguments are 'ball' and 'dog' which are given to flags 'A' and 'T' which assign the 'agent' and 'theme' roles, all respectively. Events are also defined by the fact they are a complete grammatical statement, which 'ball hits dog' is. We can take "S-hit -T dog" or " S'hitTdog' " as 'the set of all dog hittings', or in other words 'the set of all events which are dog hittings'. So essentially, by nesting an event with our single quotes '', we can generate a noun! We have different types of nouns then: - Nouns which are nominalized events, derived by nesting events and prepending a set vowel and/or set-of prefix e.g. S'hitAballTdog', 'the set of all events which are balls hitting dogs' - Nouns which are nominalized arguments within an event, derived by $ and prepending a set vowel and/or set-of prefix e.g. ShitAballT$, 'the set of all things which are hit by balls' - Nouns which are derived from elements (=word roots) by prepending the aforementioned, e.g. Sball, 'the set of all balls' I also notice a novel one S'SAlain/S-hitA$Tdog' in your notes, 'set comprised of the intersection of the set of all people and the set of all agents who hit dogs', paraphrase as 'the set of all people who hit dogs', or 'people who hit dogs'. Since the nested statement is inherently different to an event, I will term this type of statement (one which expresses set membership but no action) as an "equation" type statement. So, we have a fourth noun type: - Nouns which are nominalized equations, (...) Here's a thought. if S'hitAballTdog' is the set, then how should we derive a member of that set, in other words an instance of that event? I propose that we use "U" 'countable superhuman', as in U'hitAballTdog'; it encodes the countability of an event in its nature (we can declare discrete instances of an event, right?) and also the superhuman aspect, as an event isn't something you can strictly manipulate per se. --- Some notes on orthography: I agree that it's dangerous to use A to represent agent and animate, and I think some of this is starting to be confusing. For instance, in: hitA'OflyA$'Ttower It took me a bit to recognize that the first A in A'OflyA$' is the agent flag which has the noun OflyA$ nested. I also think the fact that a flag-phrase looks so similar to an event noun is a point of confusion: A'OflyA$' = AGENT(SUBHUMAN(FLY(AGENT($)))) but S'flyA'OflyA$'' = (SET-OF((FLY(SUBHUMAN(FLY(AGENT($))))))) 'the set of all flier-flyings' It's getting fuarrrky at incredible speeds. Here's some amendments I suggest: - Use spaces to separate words. Flags do not count as words, they are attached to a word (or $). hitA'OflyA$'Ttower -> hit A'Ofly A$' T-Itower (added set vowel as it is necessary under current definition) S'flyA'OflyA$'' -> S'fly A'Ofly A$'' - Flags are separated from what they modify with a hyphen UNLESS it is a $ suffix. hitA'OflyA$'Ttower -> hit A-'Ofly A$' T-Itower S'fly A'Ofly A$'' -> S'fly A-'Ofly A$'' - Nest all events, including those inside $-nouns. Set vowels always are always exterior to the event: hitA'OflyA$'Ttower -> hit A-O'fly A$' T-Itower S-'fly A-'Ofly A$'' -> S'fly A-O'fly A$'' - Set operators count as words, so add spaces : S'SAlain/S-hitA$Tdog'#SAgood -> S'SA-lain / S'hit A$ T-Adog' # SAgood With these adjustments, see the following: hitA'OflyA$'T'tower,pentagon' -> hit A-O'fly A$' T-'Itower,Ipentagon' Ideas off the top of my head as I finish writing this: - Maybe we should put the $ part at the end to make it easy to identify as a $-noun at a glance, so 'hit T-Adog A$'. - I feel like ' as a nester is pretty egregious when higher levels of nesting are involved as in S'fly A-O'fly A$''. I don't mind a wacky nester, but maybe another character that occupies more space should be there. - We should use traditional boolean operators , like ! (negation), & (and), | (or) and ^ (xor). I leave you with this: if '!''eat A-Ayou' & 'drink A-Ayou''' : 'starve E-Ayou' "If ( not((you eat)&(you drink)) ) then (you starve)"

A couple of quick responses to things I forgot to talk about earlier >>10969 >We could also rethink biological as "animate", but in so doing we would have to remove non-animate but still biologically-associated things such as manure into the inanimate set This makes much more sense than what I had been doing. When I first came up with the biological category I had this bizarre fear that I would somehow need to resolve the debate over whether viruses count as living things, and I decided that this one edge case should force me to move the boundaries way out in order to include it. In retrospect, it was a bad choice. >>10971 In regards to your creation of the W prefix to denote a member of a set, I think I have a more elegant solution. I mentioned this briefly but I'll go into more detail here. When writing about the relationship between sets, A statement by itself should be considered an argument that such a thing is true/exists. For example: Sdog<SAgood = The set of all dogs is contained by the set of all good animate objects. = All dogs are good. However, I think that one should also be able to use these to define a set which is then treated as an object in a larger sentence. <SAgood = a member of the set of good animate things (replacing the proposed W prefix) SAdog/Sbrown = some dogs are brown S'SAdog/Sbrown' = the set of brown dogs <S'SAdog/Sbrown' = A member of the set of brown dogs = A brown dog SElike>S'Adog/Sbrown' = The set of things I like contains the set of brown dogs = I like brown dogs. It might also make sense to use the $ marker to construct a member of the set, so $<SAgood = something that engages in "being a member of the set of good animate things", a "member of the set of good animate things be -er", or just something that is a member of the ste of good animate things. >>10975 It looks like you get the whole idea behind the prefixes, which is exciting. I would probably use a consonant prefix as opposed to a symbol to indicate uncountability. Maybe P for plural? My thought is that symbols divide and relate ideas, while prefixes define and modify them. Another thought: Perhaps prefixes with no attached word could indicate a pronoun referring to the previous noun with that same prefix. SAlain<Sgood but SA<S'doA$T'<Sbad'' = People are good, but they bad things. (Literally: the set of people is contained by the set of good things but the set of people is contained by the set of doers of things that are a member of the set of bad things) I think we should have some symbols for "but" "if" "and" etc. As a first draft, how about ^^,??,&& respectively. The characters are doubled for visual clarity and to resemble programming operators. This gives us: SAlain<Sgood^^SA<S'doA$T'<Sbad'' = people are good but they do bad things. I think the next big task is verb tense and vocabulary. For verb tense, I say we just throw in some more consonants in the prefix. As far as vocabulary is concerned, I think we need to make it as easy as possible for English speakers to learn, if not literally just English. After all, the intent is that people will be learning this language exclusively for use on this board. Oh cool just saw that you posted. I'll write a response to your new post too, consider this to lack any of the context from your post.

>>10978 Alright, I'll concede. The removal of spaces and ' as a nester is too great a sacrifice of clarity for questionable aesthetics. Maybe ~ is a nice and spacey alternative? I think that you and I were in the same headspace regarding instances of events, but I think the idea of instances as nominalized equations is pretty elegant. I am wholly onboard with U for a countable instance of an event the same way S is the set of all instances of that event. If an instance must be preceded by U then hitTdog is no longer "a dog hitting" because U~hitTdog~ is "a dog hitting". Instead, hitTdog would mean "A dog is hit by a ball", and tense prefixes would modify it to "dog was hit", "dog will be hit", etc. It seems like you and I came up with the idea of logical operators at the same time. Like you mentioned with using ', some of the operators don't break up enough space on their own. Especially "or" I think looks better doubled up ||. I think it might make more sense to use // as xor because I think it looks cool and I'm unreasonably attatched to ^^ as but. That would give us: = "The same as" < "A member/subset of" > "A superset of" / "The intersection of" && "and" || "or" // "xor" ! "negation" ?? "if" statement of condition, must be followed by: ? "then" !? "otherwise" or "else" ?!? "else if" Those last three may be a bit of a stretch, but I kinda like them. As for distinguishing the flags from the prefixes, I have an interesting Idea. Because the set of prefixes is going to expand to cover verb tense and other context, I think that we need something visibly distinct from both symbols and letters to act as our postfix flags. This leads me to... Numbers! Here is my thought for a basic convention. The parts that we haven't really explored yet will be tentatively put forward with a ? 0 "subject doing the action" 1 "subject receiving the action" 2 third item involved in action. Not sure what its formally called but its the G flag in wishAmeTyouG~Vnight<Sgood~ meaning "I wish you a good night" 3 "manner of the action? i.e. adverb" 4 "intention of the action?" 5 "result of the action?" etc. A potential shorthand when two flags both have the same value would be to put both next to each other. Most commonly this happen in reflexive verbs. hit 0Oball 1Adog "dog is hit by ball" O~move 01$~ "a subhuman object that moves itself." "an automobile" "a car" This is starting to get pretty fun. ??~~eat0Ayou~&&~drink0Ayou~~!?~starve01you~ I took the spaces out but I think it still feels pretty legible. Thoughts?

Have you considered using something like a skip code

>>10397 I have started saying 'is like kicking dead whales down the beach' now and then in conversation. I'm waiting for the day somebody recognizes that. It's great because it's a strange phrase, but sounds legit enough.

As someone who already tried to come up with a conlang dedicated to a specific internet place (pdfrel), it is a ton of fun to do. My attempt didn't stick around for more than a few months, but it was fun as a community experience. Now, on the broader implications of conlanging, especially on internet: For those who aren't familiar with linguistics, there's a thing called sociolects that describe (if we simplify it) the way you talk to different groups of people. You probably don't use the same vocabulary, grammar and accent when talking to your family, your coworkers or your friends. Naturally, it means that there are also internet sociolects. An easy example is the way people talk on twitter, both influenced by the length restriction and the need for specific vocabulary (think oomfie, FF, LRT,...). A lot of it also comes from texting slang which also had length restriction. As you might have guessed, there is a sociolect specific to 4chan (and subsequently other imageboards). Greentexting is one of its most apparent forms, as well as specific vocabulary widely used and understood by everyone (based, redpilled, fpbp, picrel, anon, lurk moar, OP, tbdesu,...). Sociolect is a huge part of a website's identity, and it's something that tells a lot about community. Now, 2 questions: 1 - Does lainchan have a specific sociolect? 2 - What does sociolects have to do with conlangs? To answer quickly the first one, not really. We have a very limited number of specific words here (soykaf, lainon,...) but I don't think it's nearly enough to qualify it as a distinct sociolect. We're really just talking like 4channers. Now, what does this have to do with conlangs? Well, from my own experience and also just how languages work, words slip through languages and sociolects. When I had my previous conlang experience, other people who spoke it would often let a few words slip in otherwise completely english posts. To go even further, it is what lasted for the longest. The language itself quickly died (as soon as it was no longer maintained and discussed) but people using a few specific vocabulary words here and there actually lasted for several months. In natural language, this happens a lot too. I don't have english examples due to me being ESL, but for example, the foreign community in france imported a lot of loan words in the sociolect of poor suburbian population (narvalo, dawa,...). In short, having a conlang maintained and practiced means that we will also subsequently develop an english sociolect with loan words from the conlang. Do whatever you want with this information. If anyone wants to start conlanging, I'll be happy to join.

>>11059 just read the rest of the thread I appreciate the inputs of linguistic lainon and the longposts about rules, but I feel like you guys are overdesigning/overthinking a little bit. I feel like you should start small (a core set of rules that people can easily reproduce, a small list of vocabulary, verbs and adjectives) and build on that with time. Making a conlang alone is really different than making one designed for a community of people. Let's try to lean more into the second option.

>>11060 I agree. Some of these rules are cool but feel more like tools for syntax analysis rather than effective grammar. It's cool, but comes off less as a language and more as a tool, like labeled bracketing but with more symbols. http://glottopedia.org/index.php/Labeled_bracketing Something we should keep in mind is what >>10962 said: >If the lainguage is going to be actually used by anyone, then it will need to be human readable and easy enough that it is worth learning just to post on one imageboard. On that subject, although it's unlikely anyone will speak this language aloud, I think it's worth making it somewhat speakable, since that's how most people read and think. >a small list of vocabulary, verbs and adjectives Inspirations here may be Basic English and/or Mini. Both are conlangs of a small number of words (850 core words in basic English, 1000 total words in Mini). These are supposedly sufficient for unambiguous communication. So we could just come up with our own grammar and our own 1000ish words that map to the words used in those conlangs and theoretically it should be good enough to use for communication and simple enough to learn in a weekend or two.

I have a couple ideas: >abugida-type writing Vowels amay be omitted, like in hebrew and arabic. >uninflected so that no affixes are added to mark tense, person, or case. This would probably mean relying on word order. >poly-alphabetic so we may use mainly roman letters but also greek letters, mathematical symbols, etc. >heavy use of punctuation to convey meaning Perhaps instead of prepositions, or to group language subunits more precisely (moreso since we have no inflection). All of these are chosen in light of the shared medium and culture. First: >unlikely anyone will speak this language aloud, I think it's worth making it somewhat speakable [>>11061] I think an abugida, consisting of nothing but mostly roman consonants, would be an interesting balance between it being a screen language and also a 'reading voice'. The reader can read them however they please. It would allow “unreadable” utterances like 'xkcd' and well known idioms and patterns such as 'wdym' or 'ishygddt'. The polyalphabetic feature is just a sort of icing on top, but fit for the multicultural medium, and even the familiarity shared by lainons of mathematical notation. In this same spirit is the heavy use of punctuation to express meaning (which could also be omitted if implied or to give ambiguity), for our shared programming culture. This can serve to make a formal grammar that can be reasonably parsed by a beginner, so that anyone could have a reasonable expectation to understand it with little effort. Much like some programming languages. It might be a semi-formal, semi-natural language. I initially added monosyllabic, but that'd exclude stuff like 'nthcdr' and 'fsck' that would be very nice to have. It just occurred to me it might actually be a bit of a creole. As I have hinted, the vocabulary can be borrowed from many disciplines. sso far I have cited words from unix, lisp, 4chan and internet lingo, and certainly many other on- and offline cultures will leave their contribution. Since it is a natural language, something that in principle should bcome on it's own, it should make up it's core vocabulary from the whole internet. Maybe some of these considerations conflict with each other, and maybe the notion is too alien for even autist lains to bother with.

I hope that the lains that wrote those rules for their conlang tried to talk using it, would be interesting

>>10385 I don't know, I prefer to continue learning Esperanto, the idea of creating a programming language for Lainons would seem better to me.

>>10385 Kwíd ne bhéreti proto-Ewropéyom? >>10388 We already have LISP. I like the idea of a LISP where trivial parentheses can be omitted.

>>11462 >esperanto For what reason? It's not even like other dead languages where you can justify it by the great works you're unlocking in their original. It's a sad, artificial european pidgin that totally fails at being a world language by ignoring everything from Asia and Africa.

>>11475 arguably solid criticisms, my understanding is that its the opinion of certain chinks that Esperanto, despite that, is still far easier to learn than English, and I assume this goes for most foreigners. Esperanto was made with the hope that people like you who don't care much for it could learn it swiftly anyway, and its chief failure is that it never got enough adoption for it to be useful for more than speaking to esperanto enthusiasts.

>>11475 >ignoring everything from Asia and Africa. Good, Europe has had enough Afro-Asiatic influence for one existence.

>>11475 Yes I have thought about it but in reality Esperanto is much easier than languages like English even for people from Asia, in the case of Africa I imagine the same thing happens, the truth is I don't know much about African languages but Esperanto It has the great advantage of having very simple rules that even help to create new words easily as its base is mainly a root and an ending, in addition to the fact that it is (as far as I know) the most famous and used artificial language in the world, although In my opinion, unfortunately the majority of speakers are in Europe, but if I can I would like to do my part to support the language because I agree in part with the mission it has. On the other hand, I am in Esperanto groups from Egypt as well as other groups from Africa and at some point I read (on reddit if I remember correctly) that someone had gotten a job in China teaching Esperanto since in that country from what they say it is the language is somewhat "famous" (I don't know the veracity of the latter). In general, Esperanto seems to me to be the most viable option for a common language, easy for everyone to learn (especially more so than English, which is the current lingua franca) and currently better known. For me it is like free/open software, if there is already one that is useful for something, why make a fork to improve it and not simply improve the existing one and have something more concise, because Esperanto can still change in several things, it is not something immovable And basically I prefer to support this idea that is Esperanto even if it is with something small because it is what I believe in. I would say that's what it's about.

I like the idea of a language designed to poison LLM databases. >>11489 Toki pona is easier. Esperanto is like what Americans think Spanish sounds like. Lojban is better sounding spoken and actually closer to being like an international language IMO though it has some missing qualities. >>11475 Thing is languages go dead for a reason. Aside from imperialist shutdown languages change over time into other languages due to the environment and simplification for that environment because humidity, air pressure and wind noise and all that influences how sound travels and how you are heard. But Ithkuil takes the cake for best written technical constructed language.

>>10443 i like your shoelaces

>>11491 havent tried to use lojban but toki pona is an amusing excercise in linguistic minimalism that I do think takes it a little too far. To be rendered into a practical thing its vocabulary would need to be vastly expanded and standardized. Even in esperanto I've run into points where one person makes a logically reasonably compounding that befuddles many people when they hear it. Tokipona is going to be that but for essentially every complicated term all the time. Its fun, >Ithkuil takes the cake for best written tell me has any live conversation been carried out in that one yet. Also esperanto is hardly dead, though perhaps it never was terribly lively either. Hard to tell but I'm not unwilling to believe it now has more speakers than ever. >>11492 thanks I made them myself

>>10954 >>10962 so I had this idea for a secure language, whos rules could be shared publicly: create a "metalect" of potential variations on a few principles, that make messages unintelligible without knowing the particular configuration / values of those principles (for instance, you could have events be described backwards or forwards). then, two people using it could share a key in private (as such channels likely always exist in person which deciphers from the principles. i think a loglang like >>10955 describes might be helpful for this purpose, but unlike lojban agree the phonemes should be pronounceable and don't think it needs to be thee most logickal thing in teh world. something ive also seen some friends do is use specific words or logics that only really make sense based on shared interests or experiences. as well as introducing new words like how uncommon / made-up words are introduced in books, and so forth. the goal isn't necessarily to hide from the multiple forensic linguists no doubt assigned to every poster on lainchan, but to at least present a cant/dialect as functionally useful as, say, Polari might have been when it was used extensively. this could be useful for talking about drugs, for instance - i don't think its impossible to devise a system which grants you plausible deniability about key details such as which drugs, where you got them from, and when - beyond omitting this information for secure messengers, ofc, when "bro use signal for that" might be itself incriminating. consider also that in many countries homosexuality (the purpose of polari) was still illegal. >It follows that we can assign meaning on the syllable level, e.g. the character 'b' doesn't mean anything on itself, but 'ba' means 'animal', 'bec' means 'plant', and so on. However, we could also assign some meaning on the grapheme level as well, so we might say that 'b' encodes 'living thing', hence 'ba' and 'bec' both indicate organisms. Given the limitations this could impose, I am skeptical, but I think we could devise a smart categorical system all the same. In any case, we will inevitably need to make use of compounding, so we might say that 'breast-animal' means a mammal, 'sea-animal' means any marine animal, and 'sea-breast-animal' means 'marine mammal', and so on, just for an idea. I've developed a conlang this way before. I started with the 100 most commonly used words in chinese and found myself very quickly having to develop complex relationships between the words and the categories i had them in, to degrees and considerations that I never accounted for. it was pretty fun, actually, i should work on it again. >>10956 >Include delimiters that look like typos, stylistic choice, etc. yes

Hi, not really a lainon, just a ghost passing by. A bunch of us kc users once came up with our attempt at a human readable English obfuscation called Berndese. The idea is to cypher a word based on phonetics. The advantage being it is rarely ever the same phonetics used as different accents etc. cause people to interpret pronunciation differently. I have attached our code. See if you can translate the following: x^ fkt lain

>>11493 >lojban It is something like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxQjwbUiM9w >toki pona too far Yeah it makes sentences can sometimes get oddly long because how much description is needed to come up with a word for something when instead it could better be different parts of words so if you are not familiar with a word you can guess what it means. It is fun hearing songs covered in toki pona though lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf4psPeNDqg >spoken ithkuil I think it is primarily a written language. If someone spoke it they would have to be very intelligent when speaking academically I imagine. Or if someone speaks it which it does have pronunciation guides, i cant find a recording of it. >esperanto not dead I never suggested it was. Maybe another Lainon did. I just dont like how it sounds too much like a bastardized Spanish.

>>11493 >>11507 Oh wait now I see what you meant. No I didnt mean Esperanto is dead. I was talking about stuff like Proto Indo European.

>>10955 >The dog hit the ball. >Let's ignore the tense and determiners for now. We have three predicates: DOG, HIT, and BALL. We know that HIT is a predicate (you might think of this as a function or what have you in programming) that maximally takes two arguments: x (the hitter, the agent of the event) and y (that which is hit, the 'theme', which is often but not always expressed as an 'object' in leyman's terms). Part of the definition of HIT is that x is an agent, and y is a theme. >(HIT:(AGENT:x)(THEME:y)) I'm with you here >We then can think of DOG and BALL as single-argument predicates themselves, e.g. x (that which is DOG/that which is BALL). See: And this is where I don't follow anymore (though this is something I see a lot in logical languages) Why would "dog" and "ball" be single-argument instead of zero-argument? >(HIT:((DOG:x):x)((BALL:x):y)) Why not simply (HIT:((DOG:):x)((BALL:):y)) ?

>>10434 mi toki pona kin! mi pilin sama; sina wile toki e sona ilo, la toki pona li pali mute a. only ended up learning it because literally all my other endeavors to learn another language failed a fairly small language with a similarly easy grammar that was more focused on computing over general discussion (which would probably still be possible, just involving more words or less precision) would be pretty cool though TP has too much "let's pretend to be a primitive island tribe" going on for technical discussion, so the words are all the sort you'd expect from a group that recently shifted from being hunter gatherers, but the core concepts are pretty good something with less than like 350 words is a must if it is to actually get used (TP with it's 123-135 or whatever words took me a month to get started really and I am bad at languages) >>11491 as much as I enjoy TP, it's also genuinely too small in terms of grammar there are relations that are way too clunky to express in it was tossing around a few ideas to fix it in my head at one point but I am not a linguist (nor am I adjacent to one)

>>11596 mi pilin e ni: toki pona li suwi tan lukin e ijo insa ilo tu. taso, ni li utala e toki mute.

>>11475 >sad esperanto is outright the most successful conlang when it comes to number of speakers, particularly number of fluent and native speakers, but like, that's an indictment of the entire field >>11597 struggling a bit to parse this post >I feel that toki pona is cute for seeing [something in two tools?]. However, it fights many words (this is clear, it resists having more words, it just doesn't translate nicely to english)

I'm a bit late to the convo but here's my take: I really like esperanto. The goal, the syntax and grammar. But it really has a few problems. One that has been mentioned earlier is word compounds. These confuse me because often they are literal translations of compounds I know from english or german. But it is only in Esperanto where you really think about the words making up the compound which often don't really make sense. But what troubles me the most is the practical learning process. I am a practiical learner. The theory, grammar and words of Esperanto are easy to learn, but the ability to understand and form sentences as you hear/read/write them just can't develop without practice. And here's english's major advantage: It's used everywhere, like 75% of the internet is written in english, so you have pretty much the whole world to learn and exercise your english. But with esperanto you have small, decentralized groups, and especially online ones are less active (from my experience). And trying to attain these skills using textbooks or lernu just doesn't work for me - I get frustrated a week or two in and quit. Maybe the problem is also that a community united just by a language and maybe a general direction of ideology/philosophy is little to unite huge groups of people. I mean, I can't expect a great conversation with someone just because they can speak english with me. IMO it's too loose. But I'd really love to see that language grow and become great. Perhaps, one day.

>>11598 i like it because of the challenge of finding the right words to express complex ideas succinctly. however this makes it difficult for everyday use, because it turns every sentence into a minimalist creative exercise. TP wasn't intended to be an everyday useful language, it is an artlang or philosophylang reflective of jan sonja's at the time values. however its one of the easiest languages to learn, and honestly not super difficult to use in this manner.

>>11507 Wouldn't Lojban be the logical choice as it's made to be as computer-like as possible? > ithkuil OH GOD NO

>>11507 >if you are not familiar with a word you can guess what it means I love this mechanic. Esperanto, and really I guess basically all languages, have it to some degree. But it doesn't justwerk in my experience even with my esperanto friends. It can be fun to try and guess, and talki powna' is a fun language, but the practicality of making wordglobs that are readily and immediately understood is imho proven false. One needs a large and relatively rigid vocabulary (which can be populated by such wordglobs if thats what you want). >>11606 if you really want to learn esperanto there are communities, congresses, passaporta servo kaj similajxoj kie povas konveni kaj konparoli kon altesperantistoj

>>10385 I think that the best bet is to simply add new words to the filter on a regular interval. It's how words like "weaboo" were created, and it makes learning the language natural (rather than requiring effort like with Esperanto/Toki Pona). Eventually with enough new words, the language becomes unintelligible to those not familiar. Picrel is a prime example. Also look up Polari (British gay language that was distinct) For a source of words, Jargonfile might be a good place to start, as for Polari. Some off the bat stuff: the internet, the web -> the wired pc, computer -> navi

>>11596 toki a! i learned it because someone i knew mentioned it and it seemed cool, so i got lipu pu and learned. >>11598 i'm also struggling to parse and i suspect that their grammar is wrong given the "li suwi tan lukin e ..."

>>11620 Perhaps though I think Lojban could use some improvements. I kind of like how it sounds when some people speak it. Too bad it's no where near as popular as Esperanto or even Toki Pona.

Honestly, I think the best choice would be Esperanto. >Easy >Popular >its on Duolingo These factors makes it easy for more people to learn it, and it encourages them too. It fits Lainers who isn't into conlangs, and can't be botherd too much with it. >but muh homebrewed Lojban noones gonna learn that, keep it simple. The more speakers the better

Mabye compromize on a variation of Esperanto? Esperlain? That'd be pretty cool I think

>>11657 if you're going to capitalize on the fact that its on duolingo and in books in many public libraries, you can't really be that much of a variant of esperanto at all can you ? What even sort of variations would you want ? the word for computer is navi/o and the word for covefe is soikaf/o ? this is pretty silly imho. If you didn't seem just like a silly fella I'd accuse you of being an activist esperantist keen to advance closer towards 'la finavenko' by any means possible lol.

>>11657 duolingo doesnt even work and it's awful

>>11657 >Duolingo I have tried it but it is like kicking dead whales down the beach. Luckily, there is https://lernu.net/

Again, numerology / gematria. Only way to transmit encrypted meanings through thge language of symbols ina way that both normal people and bots will probably miss, unless the bots are trained for that purpose. In which case they may outperform humans in a few domains, but will likely have difficulty with flexibility and dynamicism in the symbolic layer, which will filter those fncking pieces of soykaf once and for all. I hate bots, you have no idea.

>>10434 >esperanto we should make a chat for that on matrix/simplex/session/something else. lots of esperanto groups are full of soykafheads and a comfy cyb chat would make it more fun and engaging

I still think any Lainchan language should be one that it's sole purpose is either to poison LLMs or at least evade their analysis from understanding what is being said. Though the later you dont even need a new language just use of clever word play or vague references so long as the person responding doesn't overly clarify what was said. >>11621 >I love this mechanic. Esperanto, and really I guess basically all languages, have it to some degree. But it doesn't justwerk in my experience even with my esperanto friends. It can be fun to try and guess, and talki powna' is a fun language, but the practicality of making wordglobs that are readily and immediately understood is imho proven false. One needs a large and relatively rigid vocabulary (which can be populated by such wordglobs if thats what you want). This is why I was suggesting something toki pona like rather than toki poma as is. It is an ever evolving language. Basically you could take words if overly long descriptions turn them into single words composed of main parts of these longer words so it flows together better. Make it follow a specific structure on description order to make it so certain words become a common word instead of near endless variations. These rigid rules with flexibility mean a whole vocabulary can be made fairly naturally. Kind of like how if you know Greek and Latin root words you can understand technical terminology in English. There just has to be a set order to things. Also not everything inherently needs a word I can see why in toki pona no distinction is given between reptiles and amphibians seeing many mix them up anyway.

>>12692 >I still think any Lainchan language should be one that it's sole purpose is either to poison LLMs or at least evade their analysis from understanding what is being said. This can't possibly work unless you keep them from ever accessing the grammars and dictionaries for the new language, and even then, they'll figure it out sooner or later unless everyone using the language has strict "pic unrelated" discipline

While a conlang is really cool, my impression is that it would be demanding to learn, so few people would bother. I think one way to avoid that is simply to have the language be a superset of english. So, all english sentences are valid sentences in our language. Then we can add stuff. An example that already exists is "/s" used to indicate sarcasm or even emojis. Ideally it would have to be something useful but specific/fitting to lainchan. We could also simply follow OP's idea and come up with something like "invert the order of the vocals", althuogh I geuss it's not vyre defferint from inglesh most of the temi.

>>12700 >While a conlang is really cool, my impression is that it would be demanding to learn, so few people would bother. I have to agree here. They're great for sci fi and fantasy, but not useful for much else.

>>12699 It can mimic the appearance but not the meaning, LLMs make a lot of mistakes native speakers, at least non autistic ones would not make and even second language speakers would not make. It is possible to exploit these systems to be incomprehensible to machines if they assume you are just speaking a different language. Also the data pool would be far smaller than anything that is not a conlang,

>>10385 i julweiz fort inglish shud bi rit'n f'netikli difficult with the amount of vowel sounds though. there's not enough letters to represent the sounds. also, the use of 'schwa' everywhere in english means we'd have to use a filler bit of punctuation in every word, which seems a bit redundant. simplifying spelling would shave off a lot of time in school though.

ju57 u5e s0m3 le3t plllllzzzzzzzzzzzzz! An LLM may get just so busy trying to de-elite our scribbles said LLM may just "think less" over our chat to save up on tokens.

besides, we could fuaaaaaaaaaa... a text-parsing chatty by posting our menes as pics. in a sense, it could be a new era of IBs - of true IMAGEboards

>>13460 >thinking technology hasn't figured out 13375p34k yet oh lainon... https://specopssoft.com/blog/leetspeak-passwords-predictable-crackable/

>>13460 LLMs likely struggle with doublespeak and metaphors since in speech it is few people who actually point out what someone really means in the subtext so it will just gloss over this and treat it as face value if it flows naturally in language patterns.

>>13462 >>13462 That's not soy at all, but then again, cracking l33t1f1e(/ pass₩oгds has beed described in XKCD by comparing Tr0b4dour& password vs HorseStapleBatteryCorrect password

>>13460 i asked an llm some questions in 1337speak and it didn't struggle >>13461 ocr has been good for a long time

>>13470 No, no, my point was, Telegram's auto-translate not just struggles with leet - it ABANDONS leet. Therefore, some super-simple see-all system still can be messed with >>12692 >poison LLMs ahahahahah GLaDOS? In *my* social circle? It's more likely than you think! >>11657 itt we make a fork of esperanto loooool >>11547 *laugfhs* O nyo. We speak like computers now ahahahaha

>>11626 is it bad if I can understand 90% of the screencap?

>>13479 you're proficient at sms-speak, not bad, not bad at all m8, gr8 >>10387 I wonder if my little four-letter innocent meme from 2010s is on some three-letter-glitterwatchlist too.

>>13479 Nah, I'm a 35-year-old white guy who *has been* on twitter and tumblr before, but way before all that kind of thing. I started feeling "old" wrt the net by like 2012 and have become increasingly out of touch over the past decade. I only had to look up "tl" and think briefly about a couple of other things. It looks daunting as a whole but once you start parsing it, there's not all that much to it. 54 completely normal words (conservative: counting ok and ie, but not very recognizable things like bf, rp, 2c, bc) 38 other things, including a well-known emoticon and repeated mentions of XX/XY thaht I didn't include in the above line because I can imagine those not being obvious at a glance due to the formatting, but mostly chatspeak abbreviations, the majority of which aren't remotely new and would be easily understood by many people older and less online than me if they weren't deliberately in a visual context that tricks you into assuming there's something to be bewildered about. What little mystery remains falls into place easily. It is well-crafted in that the first line could be a genuine challenge if you aren't immersed and have poor tolerance for ambiguity, but it's protecting a soft target beyond there.

Hey y'all, OP of this thread. I'm not reading all those 105 posts but its cool you guys thought my idea was interesting.