- #1
Philocrat
- 612
- 0
Is it possible to construct a Logically Perfect Language? If so, of what value is such a language?
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.
Aquamarine said:About constructed languages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language
There have been many attempts to construct a logical language:
http://minyeva.alkaline.org/links.htm
The best known is Lojban:
http://www.lojban.org/
Claimed advantages:
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?
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?
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 existence issue"
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 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 existence without saying a word.
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.
Jio Moonshadow said:Logical empiracle symbols for math and syntax. Nothing is perfect
Philocrat said:Some philosophers may not accept the statement 'close that door' as amounting to or constituting a true argument simply because it is a command.
Mr. Therefore said:All statements could be considered to be part of an argument, such as "shut the door", if the context of a situation is considered. Whether it's a good argument to shut the door or not is up to the unsaid statements that would make up the context of the argument.
An enthymeme is a good example. It is missing one premise. But it's still an argument. The context could imply others statements:
The wind is blowing. It's below zero. I have the flu. The door has been open for an hour. The heat is on full blast in the house, but it's going out the door. Shutting the door will stop the wind and cause the temperature to increase in the house.
The statement in this case, "shut the door", would make a great conclusion. Although is may be a command, a command implies a theory. The theory to shut the door. It based upon strong evidence. And therefore a good argument, although the contextual premises are unstated.
marley.wannabee said:i can personally think of no flaws with binary code as an already existing perfect language... sure humans will muff up the code but the code itself?? imo perfection
scarecrow said:I was wondering about this question too. I know that the Arabic alphabet follows group theory for awhile, then breaks down. So I suppose one can conceivably construct a logical system of letters. But I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about.
Fairfield said:""The whole purpose of LPL is that it should be universal and simplified to a point where you do not need a Phd to understand it. We should be able to use it to think, speak, write, act and interact clearly with any thing that is language driven, be it human or machine.""
````
I'm curious to know how much easier you think a LPL would make the study of medicine, physics, law, etc. When it comes to philosophy and other less physically orientated subjects, I usually find they are not using all the precision that is already available in our common language. In other words, it is not the language that is deficient. It is the user's brain, or at least his/her language skill and ideation ability. No simple language is going to be able to avoid an immense vocabulary and number of verbal tenses if it is going to be able to work in all the areas of our experience. To get even nearly perfectly skilled in any kind of completely comprehensive language you might want to postulate I think would require at least a Phd.
TsunamiJoe said:well i don't usualy not read half a topic, but it was very long, so excuse me if i repeat anyone
but in my opinion a logically perfect language, would be a language that got your point across exactly as you mean it, in the least amount of time and energy required, also phonetic spelling(like many asian languages) would be a prerequisite
TsunamiJoe said:oh ok, well i can speak japanese ave good and in japanese the sentance structure i believe is very efficient and though it isn't flexible, it need not be - subject > adjective > verb is the general casing of it...for instance - boku wa nihongo benkyou shimasu - I japanese study do, and the wa just shows, what i call a connection, it means, relating to me, japanese is studied|Also as for phonetic spelling, the entire japanese language is phonetic, here's a sound referance:
A - fAther
E - prEy
I - machIne
O - gO
U - trUth
so now attempt for yourself to say boku wa nihongo hanashimasu
the phonetics of it are using other words (bow cou(similiar to cou de ta)) (wah) (knee h-on go) (ha na she mas) just as another lesson, the u on the end of nearly all verbs is a silent one, one of the only silent letters in the japanese alphabet
I hope that helped to explain it, if not ask me a more directed question related to this and I'll try to answer it also