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.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • May 14 2013: You don't get a smaller vocabulary with multiple words, even when inflection is neglected. Quite the opposite. Think of "go": you have the verb "go", you have "to" and "from" that are required to fully use the verb. Then accessing those places requires new nouns altogether, superficially unrelated to "go", like "destination" and "origin", and the latter isn't even unambiguously related to going. English's crippled relative clause system arguably helps here (consider "a place to which someone goes"), but a sentence with more than one relative clause quickly becomes unacceptably awkward, especially in speech. (Note: I concede that "route" and "vehicle" are probably not as intrinsically tied to going as Lojban's gismu list makes them out to be, which is why I don't include them in my argument.)
    • May 14 2013: Well, it probably depends on how you do it. If words are multivalent enough, you can make one do a lot of work (look at toki pona), so "to" can serve as destination and goal and a number of other such notion, while "go" may cover a variety of motions. And so on. A survey of natural languages shows many ways of solving these problems (and conlangs add many more), any of which (well, almost) is compatible with logical structure.
      • May 14 2013: They are compatible with *propositional* logical structure, I agree. With *predicate* logic structure, having sufficiently incomplete predicates starts to seem more and more strange, since the statements stop being actual predications.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.