Main Question or Discussion Point
Is it possible to construct a Logically Perfect Language? If so, of what value is such a language?
Well, some philosophers, logicians and mathematicians think that by digging deep into the underlying structure of our natural language (NL), We would (1) discover in greater detail the True Logical Forms of NL, (2) discover the irrelevant components of NL, (3) discover its underlying mathematical structures and show how NL quantifies the states of the world, and (4)finally construct a Logically sound or consistent Language with what is found in (1), (2) and (3). That the whole exercise is to use the newly derived Logically Consistent Language (LCL) to speak about and quantifies the states of the world in a way that avoids both nonsense and vagueness. So, clarity and elimination of the irrelevant from NL are presumably the ultemate goals of such a langauge.Imparcticle said:Exactly what do you mean by perfect?
When I first read your question, I immediately thought of self organising systems and chaos. Essentially, for any given system, there will be a set of basic rules such that the consequences of the rules will eventually become chaotic. That is, random. Is that a perfect system?
In the context of linguistics, the same holds true when various ways of expressing something will be derived from basic rules of the language. In order for a language to be perfect, does it need to have perfect ways of expressing something? Is this what you mean by perfect??
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesisLojban 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 grammar is based on the principles of logic.
Lojban has an unambiguous grammar.
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.
Well, if Lojban, for example, meets the strict criteria of LCL and a lot of effort has been put in to make it so, then you are still faced with the problem of getting the rest of the world to give up their different forms of NL and adopt your new LCL, Lojban. If you faill to convince the rest of the world to adopt it, and out of frustration engineer Lojban into computers and computers alone, you may very well end up creating computers that outfox the humans both in thoughts and creativity. Thanks for the links, anyway. I will study thier contents in more detail.Aquamarine said:About constructed languages:
There have been many attempts to construct a logical language:
The best known is Lojban:
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
Lojban is an offshoot of Loglan. I think interest in Loglan is quite low these days.selfAdjoint said:There was an artificial language called Loglan, constructed to embody prepositional calculus. Does anyone know anything about it?
Let me be asking a stupid question sound-like, at least one in my life [honestly, i did it loads in childhood ] :selfAdjoint said:It's not valid because it's a mode called ignotus per ignotem; expalining something you don't know in terms of something else you don't know. God existence is at least as controversial as the existence of the perfectly logical language.
There was an artificial language called Loglan, constructed to embody prepositional calculus. Does anyone know anything about it?
Seems you would have to assume too many human characteristics of your "god". For example that he uses a spoken language, so he can teach it to humans. Why would the everlasting, unseen, omnipotent being have vocal chords? Many old religions have come to grief through attributing human characteristics to their numinous constructs.Moses said:Let me be asking a stupid question sound-like, at least one in my life [honestly, i did it loads in childhood ] :
So, if God exists as a fact...so perfect language could exists if God use it to communicate with humans? Does it?
Yeah yeah, i am not branching to thread to "God existance issue"
Mmmm....selfAdjoint said:Seems you would have to assume too many human characteristics of your "god". For example that he uses a spoken language, so he can teach it to humans. Why would the everlasting, unseen, omnipotent being have vocal chords? Many old religions have come to grief through attributing human characteristics to their numinous constructs.
Tenyears, you are thinking ahead of your time. What you are suggesting here has deeply disturbing elements of truth in it. In summer 1998, I was in my room in London looking at the sum totality and end-state of the human perfection with regards to co-existence and communication, the resulting conclusion from this led to what you are proposing here. It was scary because I ran out of my room and went to a nearby pup to drown myself in beer. Infact, it is not only this type of language that may subsequently manifest. Apart from this Mind-reading status of a language, there is also the question of non-communication at all between existings beings. What would be the state of such a living condition? Would there still be such things as communal life? Would co-existing beings, subsequently construed as structurally and functionally perfect, disperse to lead their own absolute and independent existence? Or would the notion of co-existence manifest into what I constantly label 'MONOZOIDAL OR MONOPOIDAL STATE OF BEING, where the structurally and functionally perfect beings coexist non-differentially?TENYEARS said:Yes it has meaning. The language actually already exists. You only have to search and you will find this language. With it you may commicate to all of existance without saying a word.
Some philosophers may not accept the statement 'close that door' as amounting to or constituting a true argument simply because it is a command. They claim that commands, metaphors, exclamations, questions and so forth are not propositions. The question now is, can logically acceptable arguments be constructed from any of these types of statement? If we can do this, we ought to able to count them as propositions with clearly accountable or derivable truth values or contents. You should also ask yourself this:loseyourname said:Logic is only useful in evaluating arguments. Any language that is not used to make an argument - the statement "close that door," for instance - cannot be logically perfect. It cannot be logically anything.
Can you derive such symbols from our Natural Language (NL) without intellectually degrading NL, as is typically the case when some dicsiplines take logic from NL to purify and instead of returning it back to where they took it from, naively repackage and keep it for themselves, and then claim to have found or discoverd a new but Logically more precise language? Of course, we all know that nothing is perfect and that NL from which every discipline takes its logic is not either. Yes, so much so, and this is the main reason why it needs to be made more logically precise, but when we do take Logic out of NL to purify, is it not appropriate that when we finish doing so (if we can do it at all in the first place), we should gracefully return it back into NL where we took it from? This is one of the key questions that this thread is attempting to establish.Jio Moonshadow said:Logical empiracle symbols for math and syntax. Nothing is perfect