Creating new languages

[quarky]

My sweetie-pie used to teach adult literacy in Appalachian back waters.
She had a list of 300 words, that for some, was the way to go. They'd handle 90% of normal conversation. They could learn those 300 things, but not the underlying principles.

I'd love to learn more about the 123 word language.
Tie those into 4 different body gestures, and you've upped the anti

 

[Brian-M]

I'd love to learn more about the 123 word language.
Tie those into 4 different body gestures, and you've upped the anti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona

Toki Pona is a minimal language. Like a pidgin, it focuses on simple concepts and elements that are relatively universal among cultures. Kisa designed Toki Pona to express maximal meaning with minimal complexity. The language has 14 phonemes and 123 root words. It is not designed as an international auxiliary language but is instead inspired by Taoist philosophy, among other things.

Here's the official website: http://tokipona.org

 

[quarky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona



Here's the official website: http://tokipona.org

Thanks.

Wasn't aware of the taoist connection.
Will check it out.

 

[quarky]

I guess we could use this thread as a wish-list for what we want in a language until Quarky gets around to telling us what the thread is supposed to be.

I'd like a language where a person's (or animal's or object's) gender is indicated by an optional prefix rather than being inherent in the word. The way you could just leave off the prefix for gender neutral statements, instead of having to kludge things by using both terms together (eg, "he/she", "his or her") or using the plural as a gender-neutral alternative ("their" instead of "his or her").

I'd also like to be able to refer to people in the fourth person, to able to clearly distinguish the third person (he or she) being talked about from the fourth-person we're discussing them interacting with. For example, "Harry got into an argument with a stranger, and he punched him in the face". Did Harry punch the stranger in the face, or did the stranger punch Harry in the face? Since we're limited to the third person, the sentence can be read either way.

One of the obscure languages i read about has the 4th person perspective.
Possibly Ashwakan American Indian dialect?

I like the inverted ? at the start of a Spanish question. Makes sense.

 

[GodMark2]

I must say I've never quite understood the idea of inventing a new language, unless it's clear that no existing language could do the job.

Natural languages come with a lot of baggage. The most used words get shortened, slurred and generally beat to a pulp over the course of time. This ends up meaning that the most common words are also the least likely to follow conventional alteration patterns (pluralization, past tense, etc). This makes languages harder to learn, and much harder for a computer to understand.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Do we really need any new languages?

Of the estimated 7,000 languages spoken in the world today, linguists say, nearly half are in danger of extinction and are likely to disappear in this century. In fact, they are now falling out of use at a rate of about one every two weeks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/18cnd-language.html?_r=0

Wouldn't it be better to start using a language that is in danger of dying out?

(Not sure I hold this belief. Just posing the question while I muse on it.)

 

[h.g.Whiz]

I can certainly understand the fun of creating a new language, and the recreational aspect of trying to develop a better one than any that exist. I should have been more specific in what I said earlier, that my problem is with inventing new languages in which to do business or conduct public life.

What bothers me is the invention of words in which their meanings already have a word and numerous synonyms.

 

[Brian-M]

What bothers me is the invention of words in which their meanings already have a word and numerous synonyms.

Why?

Let's say I invented a new language and decided that in this language a cat would be called a tovi. Why would that bother you?

In existing languages a cat is known variously as a cat, gato, γάτα, kot, cattus, кішка, macska, köttur, paka, pisică.... and many more words as well.

What's the problem with having one more word for it?

(Words from Google Translate.)

 

[h.g.Whiz]

Why?

Let's say I invented a new language and decided that in this language a cat would be called a tovi. Why would that bother you?

In existing languages a cat is known variously as a cat, gato, γάτα, kot, cattus, кішка, macska, köttur, paka, pisică.... and many more words as well.

What's the problem with having one more word for it?

(Words from Google Translate.)

You I both know we don't need a whole new language, just a better English language, which has plenty of words. We don't need new words for old meanings.
,,

 

[dlorde]

Universal sign language would also work that way, but so few know it.

Kind of ironic... who can sign the answer to, 'what's universal, but isn't?'

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I wish the word "because", could be expressed a single character.

How about two?

因为

What bothers me is the invention of words in which their meanings already have a word and numerous synonyms.

Marxist Dialectic?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Klingon speaker Captain Krankor, author of the book The Grammarian's Desk, published in 1996 by the Klingon Language Institute, is an acquaintance of mine.

Klingon is basically English with Klingon vocabulary substituted. Or so I've heard.

 

[bruto]

I have no doubt that any existing language, English especially, is defective and a poor choice if you're intending to invent a language. Even other existing languages are almost surely better starting points. The question is not, in this case, what would be the best language to invent, but what would be the most practical way for people to communicate in the world that exists. If you invent a new language, everyone who needs it must learn it. If you use one that is widely spoken already, a large number of people will not need to learn anything. The learning curve is steeper for the remainder, of course, but is it enough steeper to make it a poor choice in the total picture?

Universal sign language might work well, but it's really hard to understand over the radio.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I love the idea of Lojban; I even worked my way through an online primer a couple of years ago. I just think the concept of a syntactically unambiguous language is neat, particular since it makes comprehension by computers much easier than natural language.

 

[!Kaggen]

Read the article.

Ironic that, 25 years of developing the most logical language and it ends up appealing the most to Russian Neo-Nazi's.

Kind of gets me thinking if Pixy Misa's computationalists approach to consciousness.

 

[Mister Earl]

I admit I'm fascinated by Ithkuil, and am considering trying to learn it.

 

[geni]

I admit I'm fascinated by Ithkuil, and am considering trying to learn it.

By the look of it it falls slightly below IUPAC systematic naming in terms of usability.

 

[Brainache]

I watched a doco recently and thought this segment might be relevant to this thread:


How Do You Programme Intelligence? - Horizon: The Hunt for AI - BBC Two .

 

[macdoc]

The most used words get shortened, slurred and generally beat to a pulp over the course of time.

you must be Australia

 

[GodMark2]

you must be Australia

Actually, I live in the part of the USA that television/radio stations from other states send their news anchors in training to intern, so they can learn how to speak English in a way that everybody can understand, rather than their local dialect. The practice has lessened in recent years, however.