Logical languages

[richard]

(Edit -- this thread continues from the  nuqneH? thread.)

Ive tried to steer clear of logical languages, although i think its a noble cause, humans as a whole will be resistant to adopting them, thus making them useless. We need to conquer the rediculous pride we have for being born on a particular plot of land before we can start talking logically. IMO, for now they will only be useful to philosophers, programmers and linguists.
Also, too much fine structure is a pain (this is latin's sin and it shouldnt be repeated), I prefer sweeping flexible grammatical rules (hence, Klingon ). Artificial natural languages are works of art, rather than architecture, hence my personal preference.

Also, i think a truly logical language will be binary based (so will probably use 64 or perhaps 128 'syllables') not be directly based on the human voice box.

Ive got a text book on Russian, but Ive only flicked through it. It does appeal to me as a language, but not as much as others. Spanish, as with all other Romance languages is not my favourite. Though most of my prejudice comes from school French, which is just ugly being stupidly phonetically slip-shod it sounds as if you are permanantly drunk, and is so far removed from the written form as to be a joke. The average French sentance seems to have about two syllables for every hundred letters and theres no correlation as to what they might be.

Assyrian I have no knowledge of, Im afraid, but I do recommend looking into some Sumerian morphology. Very cool and agglutinating like Klingon.

I never knew about the Star Wars - Quenya connection (other than, Endor is the elven name of a moon, and the Ewoks live on the "forest moon of Endor"). Its a shame, but linguistics is mostly seen as a pain for TV and movies (hence the widespread use of universal translaters; a laughable impossibility). The only other exception I can think of is The Fifth Element, which had a rough grammar and about 200 words. Languages are just too hard and take too long to make and learn properly as to be feasible on most projects. Tis a shame.

Cheers!

[Klythe]

Ive tried to steer clear of logical languages, although i think its a noble cause, humans as a whole will be resistant to adopting them, thus making them useless.  We need to conquer the rediculous pride we have for being born on a particular plot of land before we can start talking logically.  IMO, for now they will only be useful to philosophers, programmers and linguists.

    Useless for humans.   But perhaps useful for a Klingon diplomat to beat Vulcans at their own game...   I refuse to wait for humans to find the courage to overcome their petty regionalism.  I want the power of an optimized language sooner, but then again, I dabble in at least two if not all three...

Also, i think a truly logical language will be binary based (so will probably use 64 or perhaps 128 'syllables') not be directly based on the human voice box.

     What is the logic behind abitrary constrictions such as trying to force an abstract thing as language to an immovable contrete block of math?   Langauges are not so much based on the human voice box as they are on the way the languages are used.   The human voice box does not change significantly from one plot of land to another, and yet we have languages such as Hawai'ian with only 13 phonemes(distinct sounds, for the non-linguists reading along), English with 44 phonemes and other languages with a hundred or even more.  The number of phonemes depends on how the language is used, things like how close the speakers are to each other, how noisey is the area the speakers are in, and whether speakers are expected to have kept thier teeth, and how many words are availble in the language.  The larger the vocabulary, the more likey there will be more phonemes and a more complex morphology(rules obout how to build a legal word or syllable) to keep the morpheme/'word' lengths reasonable.

     A particularly useful battle language would have very few sounds, selected (either over time by the speakers or all at once by a language designer) to be easily distinguished even in very noisy situations.   A scientist's language would have more sounds and more strenous morphology because scientists have the luxury of speaking in relatively quiet rooms but often have a lot of complicated nuanced detailed things to say.

    Klingon is a warrior's language, it is more useful in battle than in a laboratory.  Which is why I seek a second language for Klingon scientists.

Though most of my prejudice comes from school French, which is just ugly

    The less said about Fench the better.     All I am willing to say is that it is well suited to the French.  }}:P

Assyrian I have no knowledge of, Im afraid, but I do recommend looking into some Sumerian morphology. Very cool and agglutinating like Klingon.

     The reason I chose Assyrian is because of all of the other languages in the same family.   It is the closest living language to Aramaic, which is considered the father language of modern Hebrew, modern Arabic (which provides most of the vocabulary for Swahili.)

I never knew about the Star Wars - Quenya connection [/quete]

    I should clarify that it was based on the *sounds* of Quenya.   That's all the sound monkeys bothered with.  No grammar, no vocab, no meaning of intonation or anything... I had not heard of the Endor thing.  It may be a coincidence, but yeah, it's probably a Tolkien reference...

[richard]

Useless for humans. But perhaps useful for a Klingon diplomat to beat Vulcans at their own game... I refuse to wait for humans to find the courage to overcome their petty regionalism. I want the power of an optimized language sooner, but then again, I dabble in at least two if not all three...

Optimised to what though? A language is always a set of arbitrary rules, and as for optimisation, it really depends on your purpose what rules are best, so the chief need is always flexibility (as you hinted at).

I admit though, that where multiple parts of society are distinct multiple languages could be a possibility. A common language (English/tlhIngan Hol) and a scholarly one (Latin/QeD Hol?) is about the maximum found in earth society though. Given the great need for more precise use of language by scholars and scientists, such Klingons would develop a complex dialect that would eventually become a distinct language any way. Theres simply no way round it. Whether or not this would be recognised as distinct, or just classed as sophisticated jargon is a matter of opinion however.

Note: There isn't a set logic, but multiple forms of logic that each have different uses. My logic text book actually refers to Vulcans in its introduction, and its not all that flattering to the writers' knowledge of the subject.

What is the logic behind abitrary constrictions such as trying to force an abstract thing as language to an immovable contrete block of math?

This isn't what i desire either, but it would be the most clear and unchanging and precise possible language. It would also be VSO and have CV(y,w,r) IMO too. Pronounciation and even the human voice may change over time, but at least the mathematical foundations of the language wouldnt. We sort of have this system already, where the written form is considered "purer" then the spoken form, but even then the written form occasionally changes to keep up with the pronounciation. A mathematically based language would be just as compatible with humans as a phonetically based one, but would also have the added benefit of being computer compatible too. Just think, a programming language which is also your own natural language!

Also, dont think that someone couldnt shift the sounds around to fit the context better as long as the underlying framwork remains unchanged. The hexadecimal sequence A8 may be pronounced "pfarch" or "QoQ" or "Click Click Snap Thud Click Pop" depending on whos saying it, but a translater would always be able to give a perfect translation just by shifting the sounds.

The reason I chose Assyrian is because of all of the other languages in the same family. It is the closest living language to Aramaic, which is considered the father language of modern Hebrew, modern Arabic (which provides most of the vocabulary for Swahili.)

I chose Arabic for much the same reason, it being related to all of the above and is still pretty loyal to its roots. I did a Hebrew course for a bit and was surprised to find tons of consistancies. It's odd that Hebrew/Judaism and Arabic/Islam are regarded as so juxtoposed nowadays.

[Kesvirit]

Richard: ...it [a binary based language] would be the most clear and unchanging and precise possible language. It would also be VSO and have CV(y,w,r) IMO too.

I understand the inclusion of y and w as vowels; this argument has come up on the boards before. Why do you include r as well? How does this fit into your proposed hexadecimal system? I am having difficulty following your mathematical model of constructed language.

-=- Kesvirit

[richard]

How one loves to talk about ones work a little too much.
i mean the r as an american style "r", hence, its only an approximate if it can be called a consonant at all. Heres a grid. This is just my opinion of what would be easiest to pronounce by english speakers.

Im northern british btw, if you're having trouble, but ive tried to pick simple examples, and its mostly similar to the system Okrand uses.

         rounded       "r"ified          tensed     simple
         OW=boat     OR=bought  OY=boy    O=bot
         AW=bounty  AR=barn       AY=bite    A=bat
         EW=beauty  ER=burn      EY=bait     E=bet
         IW=boot       IR=beard     IY=beat    I=bit

Ive done some varients on the system, some with some really cool features, but this is the simplest (one system with tone and lots of glides and palatisation etc ((l,h,s)C(r,w,y)V(r,w,y) i think) came to around 2000 distinct syllables). This one comes to 16 vowels (4x4), and so only requires 8 consonants to get a 128 CV(y,r,w) syllable system, say P,T,K,B,D,G,S/Z,N/M. Increase that to 16 and we have 256 syllable system, communicating 2 bytes per syllable, P,T,K,B,D,G,S/Z,N/M,F,V,Ch,Sh,Th,L,H.

Incredibly cool no?

I obviously opted for four vowels for easier maths in the simple version, and its easier to distinguish the seperate diphthongs this way. The writing system i imagined would be similar to korean, an alphabet arranged like a syllable-character. Some of the choices may seem controversial, like IW="oo" but i think it works. Note that "beard" is usually pronounced with two syllables (bee-erd), just contract the noise and thats about right.

For the syntax etc, id probably take a few notes from japanese, it being the best and easiest syllabic language i know (alright, its the only one i know! ). Except it would be VSO (easier to program) and wouldnt have homophones. Hurrah!
 
any arguments or comments?
Cheers!

[Kesvirit]

How one loves to talk about ones work a little too much.

Is the work the one refers to linguistic or programming in nature?

i mean the r as an american style "r", hence, its only an approximate if it can be called a consonant at all.

The phoenetic inventory with which I did most of my studies is the now aparently defunct APA (thought I had to learn the IPA as well).
Of course my keyboard does not allow for most of the IPA symbols, and in order to use a 7 bit representation of the IPA (with thanks to zan Klythe) we would all have to agree ahead of time on which to use, and, well... }}8-?
I count eleven permutations of the letter "r". I can reliably reproduce seven of them in conversation, and four of them routinely appear in the American Standard Language. But all eleven were listed as consonants.

Heres a grid.

::Looks high and low for grid, finding none.:: Unfortunately the html that works so well for such things has been disabled.  If you have a grid or table that will further clarify this and give us a visual representation of your hexadecimal (or other) system, trek on over to Images in posts and send me an image to post to the thread.

This is just my opinion of what would be easiest to pronounce by english speakers.

Aye, and therein lies the rub. There are diffrent dialects of "English" scattered all over the sector. In my experience many are unintelligable from others. My Ozark-born lady mother (the first one to snicker will be the recipient of a challenge of personal honor, so seal your exhaust portals while you still have the option) was frequently flummoxed in Glasgow.

Im northern british btw, if you're having trouble, but ive tried to pick simple examples, and its mostly similar to the system Okrand uses.

Unfortunately Okrand concentrates on "simplifying" his syntax to the point of ignoring phonetic conventions altogether.

Except it would be VSO (easier to program) and wouldnt have homophones. Hurrah!

Agreed on both counts. Life would be simpler and more satisfying if I never had to battle another homophone. Even my spell-checkers routinely lose out to them.

-=- Kesvirit

[richard]

Twas nothing more than a linguistic exercise, im a lousy programmer to begin with and i have no desire to start mammoth and quite thankless tasks where cleverer people are already doing similar stuff far better.  

The grid was simply the list of vowel sounds. I copied it straight from my notes, and my notes are .txt s. It was pretty easy to read anyhow, so i didnt bother converting it or owt. I can reproduce all the sounds if anyones interested, but i gather people get the idea.
4 vowels and 3 glides = 16 possible vowel sounds. Add any given 16 consonants = 256 possible CV syllables. Easy.
Throw in a super classificational morphology, mix in a little ultra regular VSO;RAN syntax, bake for 20 mins on gas mark 5 and BANG! you have a "true", super-sound, computationally compatable, logical language. IMO at least.

I count eleven permutations of the letter "r". I can reliably reproduce seven of them in conversation, and four of them routinely appear in the American Standard Language. But all eleven were listed as consonants.

Of course, those are the difficulties of a digital representation of an analogue phenononema (and also my lack of any higher linguistic learning, i read literature, not language ).
My meaning was, whereas the most basic "a" sound is usually taken to be in "father" I take that to be the same as "barn" and therefore i reckons "bat" or "pasty"(the Cornish variety) is simpler, and "father" should therefore be "farther".
Theres my isolated "r" sound, and also my justification for calling it a semivowel/glide/approximate/annoyance. Spanish style "r"s are what i would call a consonant "r". And of course, speakers of the Parisien "r" should have their tongue stapled to their forehead for muddying the linguistic waters.

There are diffrent dialects of "English" scattered all over the sector. In my experience many are unintelligable from others.

Its not that bad. British or American received pronounciation should be able to handle my examples fairly well. And, even if they are distorted; it doesnt really change anything as long as the distortion is consistant throughout the accent. That is of course the beauty (and indeed the very point) of the concept, as its not phonetically based it cannot be mucked up through phonetic misuse.

 

[Kesvirit]

I received a complaint about both of you insulting the French language in this  thread. You two may find something inherently amusing and inferior about French and those who use it, but there is at least one French speaker who does not, and takes pride in her language.

Some would argue that because this is a Klingon-themed board, anyone who cannot take the heat should get off the Bridge. But this is also an arm of the Diplomatic Corps, and we must take the perspectives of other Klinfolk, other peoples, and other races into consideration before speaking. You are speaking of Real Life people, not fictional characters or populations. I should not have to remind you that words spoken in make-believe may have unfortunate ramifications in reality.

Vigorous debate is considered appropriate here.  Flame-bait is not. If you must indulge in such behavior take it elsewhere. There are many Usenet groups established just for this purpose who would welcome you.

One last note: our Lady Ambassador is a Francophone. In the unlikely event she reads the posts in question, I do not believe she would appreciate the "humor" of your sentiments.

-=- Kesvirit

[richard]

Honestly, no offence is intended. Ive been to France on holiday half a dozen times so I obviously quite like the country and its inhabitants. It is simply a matter of phonetic taste, which was afterall what we were discussing. If someone wants to voice a contrary opinion about the merits of French or anything else, or indeed gently mock English's eccentricity or Japanese's rampant homophones or German rambling morphology I wouldnt have a problem either and I fail to see how someone could.

I also dislike modern english architecture, french philosophy, japanese food and spanish and american television, but these also have no bearing on my opinion of particular people. Am I an anti-semite if I dislike hebrew script (which i do btw)?

If we are to have sensible discussions (or even non-sensible ones) about language we have to be able to comment on it, and this being a language board, it does seem like the appropriate place. If people find such discussion emotionally charged (even lighthearted ones), then it would be interesting to read any linguistic essay published by them (a truly klingon read for a subject usually perceived as dry!).
 
Cheers, and sorry again.