TED Conversations

Michael Libres Uy

This conversation is closed.

The viability of implementing a logically constructed Language. Namely Lojban.

We are aware of how profound of an effect language has on its speakers, but we still have yet to implement a constructed language that is constructed on the basis of logic rather than history. Lojban is a language constructed on the basis of predict logic by James Cooke Brown and the Lojban institute and can be found here: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Lojban
This will be a flexible discussion, if you are wondering if your comment is relevant. Post it!

Lojban has a number of features which make it unique:

Lojban is designed to be used by people in communication with each other, and possibly in the future with computers.
Lojban is designed to be culturally neutral.
Lojban has an unambiguous grammar, which is based on the principles of logic.
Lojban has phonetic spelling, and unambiguous resolution of sounds into words.
Lojban is simple compared to natural languages; it is easy to learn.
Lojban's 1300 root words can be easily combined to form a vocabulary of millions of words.
Lojban is regular; the rules of the language are without exception.
Lojban attempts to remove restrictions on creative and clear thought and communication.
Lojban has a variety of uses, ranging from the creative to the scientific, from the theoretical to the practical. and Here we will discuss the ideas of how to implement the language, the problems of doing so, and all the for and against notions regarding language in general.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 12 2013: Lojban. Such a great idea and so useless.
    Yes, logic and unambiguous grammar is cool and I see so many benefits for computer-speak and communication, but why, oh why, would you use so many strange words.
    English is international. It is used in so many parts of the internet, why not start from here? (Let's call it EngLog)
    Make it easier to learn and to understand. Then have several levels of proficiency, which introduce more and more logical stuff. EngLog1, EngLog2...

    EngLog1: Just English without grammatical irregularity.
    Example: I be Ricard. You understand EngLog1. Everybody, who read EngLog1 and speak English, can understand it.

    EngLog2: The same, but use stuff in front of verbs to indicate time:
    < for past tense (read: have).
    > for future tense (read will).
    ! for "not/negative/don't" (read: not).
    Example: I < be in Russia 2 years ago, but I !speak Russian. Maybe I > learn it some day.

    EngLog3: As EngLog2, but with parenthesis for structuring.
    Example: If (you be programmer & you !be tired) you >understand(EngLog3 and EngLog4).

    EngLog4: Use object-notation to indicate attributes and possession.
    If (you.car be electric) you.investment be good.
    If (you < ! buy electric car) you.car >be too expensive soon, because oil.price >be higher.

    EngLog5: Maybe something like attribute-selection and logical quantifiers? I don't know.
    Example: I hope: Forall people[age < 3] education >be modern, if politicians >! be stubborn.

    Hehe. Thinking about artificial language rules is is actually quite fun. :-)
    But my point is: If you take something known and morph it more people will understand and use it.
    At the same time it is easier for people, who learn EngLogXY to learn true English. Thus it provides incentives to learn EngLog in the first place.
    I think Lojban is too radical, too alien to understand and learn.

    EngLogXY on the other hand is just an "intrinsic structure"
    So one could learn GermanLog or FrenchLog and then switch to EngLog (new words, but known grammar)
    • May 14 2013: Several of your ideas are difficult to make audiovisually isomorphic, and by the time you get to your later rules, the system looks more foreign than Lojban to me, honestly.

      The more important problem, however, is that a predicate-driven language needs to have "full" predicates, that is, ones which encode full sentences by themselves. For example, in English "go" requires many prepositions to use fully; a logical language really needs a relation "go" that relates goers, destinations, and origins.
      • May 14 2013: I agree that EngLog looks pretty hopeless, but that is largely problems with English orthography (a misnomer if ever). The dividing of predicate up over several words offs some advantages, chiefly in terms of a smaller vocabulary (questionable) and added ease in ignoring what isn't relevant. "He goes to the store from the school along Route A on foot" is neither more or less logical that {ko'a klama lo zarci lo ckule la A lo [foot - no dictionary at hand]}, but saying just "He's going to the store" is relatively simpler.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.