I’m interested in learning about how different languages are structured, especially Esparanto/Ido and Lojban
I don’t think it will help you to communicate with orcas, but okay.
Esperanto/Ido are more regular that natural languages, simply because languages gradually collect things that are not strictly necessary, such as synonyms, different declinations for different classes of words, or taking one word from one language and then another related word from a different language. For example, in English, compare the etymologies of “see” and “visible”. But the concepts are related, so wouldn’t it be easier to just say “see-able” instead? If you remove these kinds of irregularities (each of them sounds like not a big deal, but those “not big deals” accumulate)… you end up with a language that is 10x easier to learn and remember, while being able to express the same concepts. But it’s essentially still the same thing, only simpler.
I am less familiar with Lojban, but I think the original idea was to make it more precise, kinda like a computer language. But the actual design decisions seem to me more like “Hollywood rationality” or “cargo cult”; making yourself superficially sound more like a computer does not necessarily give you the computer-like clarity or efficiency. For example, all nouns have to be exactly 5 letters long. Uhm, interesting, but what improvement exactly do you think is achieved by that? Or, the original version required you to specify all parameters for words, for example you couldn’t say “go” without specifying where from, where to, by what means, through what, and when (or something like that, maybe I got some of the parameters wrong), in given order. Uhm, interesting, but what if you do not want to specify some of those things; like, if you translate from English to Lojban, and the original text did not contain that information? So you say things like “I am going from unspecified to school through unspecified by unspecified at unspecified”. I guess it is nice to be reminded what exactly is unspecified, but if you talk like this all the time, it becomes pretty annoying. So the language was updated to contain something like prepositions, but reinvented badly—instead of specifying the relation, they specify the numeric order of the parameter—so the sentence now sounds like “I am going #2 school”, because the #2 parameter for “to go” is “where do you go to” (but for a different verb, the destination could be the #1 or #3 parameter, so you need to remember the exact order of the parameters for each verb separately). Ironically, if we follow the analogy with the programming languages, what we would need here is the named parameters from Python. (But that is basically reinventing prepositions.) And so on; it seems to me that the language design contains many ideas that sound impressive, but the actual use… uhm, I am not sure whether someone actually uses the language, so you would have to ask those.
But most likely, this will all be irrelevant for orcas. Their languages may be regular or irregular, with fixed or random word order, or maybe with some categories that do not exist in human languages.
But most likely, this will all be irrelevant for orcas. Their languages may be regular or irregular, with fixed or random word order, or maybe with some categories that do not exist in human languages.
Yeah I was not asking because of decoding orca language but because I want inspiration for how to create the grammar for the language I’ll construct. Esparanto/Ido also because I’m interested about how well word-compositonality is structured there and whether it is a decent attempt at outlining the basic concepts where other concepts are composites of.
I don’t think it will help you to communicate with orcas, but okay.
Esperanto/Ido are more regular that natural languages, simply because languages gradually collect things that are not strictly necessary, such as synonyms, different declinations for different classes of words, or taking one word from one language and then another related word from a different language. For example, in English, compare the etymologies of “see” and “visible”. But the concepts are related, so wouldn’t it be easier to just say “see-able” instead? If you remove these kinds of irregularities (each of them sounds like not a big deal, but those “not big deals” accumulate)… you end up with a language that is 10x easier to learn and remember, while being able to express the same concepts. But it’s essentially still the same thing, only simpler.
I am less familiar with Lojban, but I think the original idea was to make it more precise, kinda like a computer language. But the actual design decisions seem to me more like “Hollywood rationality” or “cargo cult”; making yourself superficially sound more like a computer does not necessarily give you the computer-like clarity or efficiency. For example, all nouns have to be exactly 5 letters long. Uhm, interesting, but what improvement exactly do you think is achieved by that? Or, the original version required you to specify all parameters for words, for example you couldn’t say “go” without specifying where from, where to, by what means, through what, and when (or something like that, maybe I got some of the parameters wrong), in given order. Uhm, interesting, but what if you do not want to specify some of those things; like, if you translate from English to Lojban, and the original text did not contain that information? So you say things like “I am going from unspecified to school through unspecified by unspecified at unspecified”. I guess it is nice to be reminded what exactly is unspecified, but if you talk like this all the time, it becomes pretty annoying. So the language was updated to contain something like prepositions, but reinvented badly—instead of specifying the relation, they specify the numeric order of the parameter—so the sentence now sounds like “I am going #2 school”, because the #2 parameter for “to go” is “where do you go to” (but for a different verb, the destination could be the #1 or #3 parameter, so you need to remember the exact order of the parameters for each verb separately). Ironically, if we follow the analogy with the programming languages, what we would need here is the named parameters from Python. (But that is basically reinventing prepositions.) And so on; it seems to me that the language design contains many ideas that sound impressive, but the actual use… uhm, I am not sure whether someone actually uses the language, so you would have to ask those.
But most likely, this will all be irrelevant for orcas. Their languages may be regular or irregular, with fixed or random word order, or maybe with some categories that do not exist in human languages.
(Off topic, but I like your critique here and want to point you at https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7RFC74otGcZifXpec/the-possible-shared-craft-of-deliberate-lexicogenesis just in case you’re interested.)
Thanks!
Yeah I was not asking because of decoding orca language but because I want inspiration for how to create the grammar for the language I’ll construct. Esparanto/Ido also because I’m interested about how well word-compositonality is structured there and whether it is a decent attempt at outlining the basic concepts where other concepts are composites of.