Logic languages

Anyone find "Ithkuil" (http://www.ithkuil.net/), a constructed natural language that "represents a cross between an a priori philosophical language and a logical language" interesting? Anyone know anything similar?

>>731 >Anyone know anything similar? Lojban.

>>733 Can you describe why you learned it and whether it's useful? Does it affect your thinking or how you convey information to others? I'm interested in whether it's possible to change the "internal voice" that one uses.

>>733 If it's similar to Ithkuil, how does it differ?

>>736 Not the same guy, but (before reading this, know that I don't speak any conlang, I just study a bit of linguistics): >Does it affect your thinking or how you convey information to others? Probably no. As Steven Pinker says, we (probably) have deep down language on our brains (like machine code) and natural languages (phonetic, scripted, body language, etc) is just a layer of abstraction that defines metaphors for the world we perceive. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis does not seem to be actually true in it's total extent (that language constructs the way we perceive the world). But it is true that language changes some specific behaviors, but seem to be subtle and not as exaggerated by Orwell's Newspeak. >I'm interested in whether it's possible to change the "internal voice" that one uses. That's called "subvocalization". People that learn Lojban or similar languages seem to have some changes, but it does not make them a genius. I think, though, that learning a different language like Ithkuil, Lojban or Toki Pona can make interesting changes on your synaptic pattern. >>737 It's not that similar. The similarities is on the idea that both are constructed languages created to be a formal language, as Chomsky defines it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language Lojban can be parsed on yacc, for example. The similarities end here. The differences is that Lojban has no scripting language. It was adapted to Tengwar and Quickscript, for example, but Ithkuil has it's own script (logographically scripted, IIRC). And there's many differences that I can't explain because I don't really understand that deeply. But I had some discussion with guys on leddit a time ago. Lojban seems to be a latin based language, but with formalism applied. Ithkuil is a enterely new conlang, very alien, that even the creator itself can't speak fluently and takes minutes to formulate a phrase. Lojban could actually be used for normal conversation. Ithkuil would be limited to scientific papers, if ever applied.

>>748 Good response! Would you consider learning either? Did you study linguistics in university or in your own time? This question comes out of left field, but is it possible for something like proofing in maths to be applied (left purposely vague since I don't know enough myself) to prove the soundness of a statement in Lojban? Could we ever see constructed languages being used in legal documents in that sense?

>>755 >Would you consider learning either? Sure. I'm planning to learn Lojban in next years. >Did you study linguistics in university or in your own time? Autodidactism... >is it possible for something like proofing in maths to be applied... It is possible, yes. As I said, Lojban already can be parsed on yacc, so that's the first step. But the point is that, opposite to programming languages, the set of words of a conlang is much bigger. On proglangs you have few words (functions), so you can prove then much faster. On lojban it's a problem. Also, it's important to state that a spoken language is not something static as a programming language. The realm of natlang and conlang is much bigger because it's dynamic and suffer from the interaction of the beings using it and, therefore, changes will happen (such as neologisms and mannerisms). This makes it very difficult to prove in a logic way. But, it is possible. It wouldn't bring anything especial, though. The biggest issue we have with natural languages today is ambiguity. Lojban already removed all the ambiguity. See this nasty example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo >Could we ever see constructed languages being used in legal documents in that sense? Of course yes. Especially in fields that require high precision, such as military missions or spacial projects. Also for technical documentation and artistic purposes. I myself, as a film maker, want to produce a short movie on lojban, I just need the resources. Other musicians are already using conlang too, for example, the Sigur Ros language called Vonlenska. The United Nations already tried to apply a conlang, called Esperanto, but it was not successful. I think english is the new latin, and it's easier to just stick with it, so I don't think we'll see, like, a entire nation speaking and writing in a conlang like Lojban. ps. I really like the musics the community did using lojban, check 'em if you haven't. pps. there's a presentation on Chaos Communication Congress about lojban, it's pretty interesting, just search and you'll find...

bump

Lojban is basically lisp syntax for natural languages, with explicit monosyllabic words for "open parenthesis" and "close parenthesis". In some ways it's nice in the sense that its grammar is fully context-free, but I find the "permute arguments" conjugations to be really annoying to use. Common lisp has keyword arguments for this exact reason. Lojban is also super analytic with no direct conjugations, just mashing together words. Ithkuil seems like the direct opposite, lots of prefixes and affixes.