The Ithkuil constructed language (Specific Languages) Language Learning Forum

The Ithkuil constructed language
Tags: Conlang
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages

10 messages over 2 pages: 1 2

s0fist
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5047 days ago
260 posts - 445 votes

Speaks: Russian*, English
Studies: Sign Language, German, Spanish, French

Message 9 of 10

14 January 2012 at 5:22am | IP Logged

ithkuil.net/faqs.html wrote:

I see Ithkuil’s hypothetical usage as being a specialized language for specific purposes where exactitude and clarity of cognitive intention is called for, and to make deliberate obfuscation difficult, e.g., political debate, the teaching and discussion of scientific disciplines, the discussion of philosophy, the written presentation and preservation of history. As such, it would be a “learned” language (like learning a computer programming language or the predicate calculus) whose structure would be consciously preserved by its speakers.

Does anyone else find the idea appealing, or useful?
Scientific, political, and more or less any domain specific language in any language ends up inventing its own little vocabulary island anyway, so why not standardize this kind of thing and leave the day-to-day language out of it.
(Yes I realize it's probably counterproductive and counterhistoric, since most of the progress made in numerous fields have been attributed to those fields adopting the speaker's native language to ease the burden of communication. But just let me dream this specific dream, distinctly separate from a uniform world language dream.)
I don't know any Ithkuil, but the possibility of the language of science itself, obviating all the flac that natural languages of science contain and so just by using the more logical language elucidating all the concept and eliminating [most of] the mistakes and ambiguities. I would hope such a language would still be expressive enough for intentional ambiguity, like poetry, sophistry, etc, but even if not, that can be done in your L1.

ithkuil.net/faqs.html wrote:

For example, the mere example of saying (or thinking) that it’s raining outside would require a hypothetical Ithkuil speaker to consider the evidential source of the information (direct observation? hearsay? inference?) and its reliability (Validation), the pattern and timing of the raindrops (Phase), the purpose/intent of the utterance (Sanction), whether the rainfall is being considered as a gestalt versus a sequence of discrete componential events (Configuration), whether the context of the thought/utterance is descriptive, purposefully important, metaphorical, or a component of a holistic situation (Context), and so on.

I wish I could do that kind of thing in all my natural languages.
I'm only pining for the availability of a choice though not a forced requirement to exercise it, which may be the deal, or not, in Ithkuil, since I don't know much about the language itself.
I presume it's intuitive and easy in Ithkuil, for no good reason, other
than that it's usually very convoluted and complicated in a natural language.

I remember coming across one or two other conlangs designed with "logical" and "philosophical" intents from many different angles, though Ithkuil may have been one of those. I haven't looked in detail at Ithkuil, which I'm sure isn't perfect, but just the idea itself is appealing enough.
So all sensationalist claims aside, anyone else find the ideas fraught with possibilities or would most of you rather keep learning and using more natural languages?
2 persons have voted this message useful

sipes23
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
pluteopleno.com/wprs
Joined 4871 days ago
134 posts - 235 votes

Speaks: English*, Latin
Studies: Spanish, Ancient Greek, Persian

Message 10 of 10

14 January 2012 at 8:15pm | IP Logged

math82 wrote:

The "think six times faster" claim was not made by Quijada, but by a Russian journalist in article
for computer magazine.

I know Quijada claimed no such thing—but I just detest those sorts of claims so much that I can't help myself. I did
poke over to look at website, so I saw Quijada's plan. What would make it more interesting to me would be to know
whether Quijada did some linguistic research (more like I understand the case with Lojban) to see what sorts of
things are expressed by people in natural languages. If so, has he put any thought into the nature of what language
is obligated to express? Or what it can't express? But as a philosophical look at how language can be compacted for
precision, I'm not sure I'm interested all that much. From what I know (and it's not much), languages seem to thrive
on ambiguity and multiple possible interpretations as shortcuts to usability. Ithkuil and Lojban seem to look at the
opposite side of that—is anyone in linguistics researching this?
1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 10 messages over 2 pages: << Prev 1 2

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.2344 seconds.