Lojban The Logical Language

[Taylor Seraphim]

What are you thoughts on Lojban, and are there any speakers of it here?

It is a constructed language based on logic.

 

[Terese]

Didn't know it existed until now. Quite interesting from the looks of it.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Didn't know it existed until now. Quite interesting from the looks of it.

I'm learning it currently and I personally think that it should become a universal secondary language.

 

[Terese]

I'm learning it currently and I personally think that it should become a universal secondary language.

It has no culture attached to it though, so i highly doubt that.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It has no culture attached to it though, so i highly doubt that.

Wouldnt that make it a better universal language?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is a constructed language based on logic.

It was constructed based upon Loglan (which at least had the realistic and useful goal of testing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis), and is as useless and pointless as Klingon, less realistic than Quenya, and not the only spin-off languages of Loglan (others include Voksigid and Celqi). Indeed, scientists have made more use of Klingon than Lojban, and readily compared the two. See e.g.,
Bianco, J. L. (2004). Invented languages and new worlds. English Today, 20(02), 8-18.
Cheyne, R. (2008). Created languages in science fiction. Science Fiction Studies, 386-403.
Smaha, R., & Fellbaum, C. (2015). How Natural Are Artificial Languages?. In Language Production, Cognition, and the Lexicon (pp. 299-312). Springer.
etc.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It was constructed based upon Loglan (which at least had the realistic and useful goal of testing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis), and is as useless and pointless as Klingon, less realistic than Quenya, and not the only spin-off languages of Loglan (others include Voksigid and Celqi). Indeed, scientists have made more use of Klingon than Lojban, and readily compared the two. See e.g.,
Bianco, J. L. (2004). Invented languages and new worlds. English Today, 20(02), 8-18.
Cheyne, R. (2008). Created languages in science fiction. Science Fiction Studies, 386-403.
Smaha, R., & Fellbaum, C. (2015). How Natural Are Artificial Languages?. In Language Production, Cognition, and the Lexicon (pp. 299-312). Springer.
etc.

Your saying because scientist have used Klingon more (because it has been around longer) that it is better?

Please prove how it is less realistic that Quenya.

Ok what is the best language in the world?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wouldnt that make it a better universal language?

No. The more these would-be "universal languages" are used, the less they become universal. Humans do not think according to predicate logic (or there already would exist a universal language), and speech communities will not conform to an artificial grammar that is so at odds with embodied cognition and other universals of human cognitive processes. Additionally, there is no point in trying to make a formal language designed to minimize or erase semantic content as a model for language, which is based upon said content.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

No. The more these would-be "universal languages" are used, the less they become universal. Humans do not think according to predicate logic (or there already would exist a universal language), and speech communities will not conform to an artificial grammar that is so at odds with embodied cognition and other universals of human cognitive processes. Additionally, there is no point in trying to make a formal language designed to minimize or erase semantic content as a model for language, which is based upon said content.

And you speak for all humans?

Lojban does not set about to erase semantic content that is a flat out lie.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your saying because scientist have used Klingon more (because it has been around longer) that it is better?

Klingon hasn't been around longer. And when I say "use", I mean "use" to study. No scientist actually uses these languages as languages, but cognitive scientists, linguists, etc., do study them. My point was simply that as far s realistic usage is concerned, Lojban is as realistic and scientifically interesting as is Klingon.

Please prove how it is less realistic that Quenya.

Proof is for mathematics, not science. Quenya was developed by one who understood the connection between language and culture, the nature of language, and it was based upon actual languages (see e.g., Salo, D. (2004). A Gateway to Sindarin: A Grammar of an Elvish Language from JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. University of Utah Press.).

Ok what is the best language in the world?

Linguists, psychologists, neuroscientists, and the rest of us who study language (both in the brain and usage) don't think like this. There is no "best".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And you speak for all humans?

No, but my view does represent the research in those fields relevant here.

Lojban does not set about to erase semantic content that is a flat out lie.

It was designed based on predicate logic. Predicate logic is about syntax, is deliberately intended to be reducible to syntax, and cannot deal with semantics (or, to the extent it can, fails most of the time and certainly fails as a formal system here).

 

[rosends]

What are you thoughts on Lojban, and are there any speakers of it here?

It is a constructed language based on logic.

I am coming at this as an outsider. His presentation did nothing to make the language interesting to me. Claims about the logic and simplicity fell flat -- he showed how a sentence which makes perfect sense in English could be reworded into another language in which it makes sense. That's nice, but unnecessary. I got no sense of how this language would make anyone's life easier. Now, that maybe a fault of his presentation and not the language but I am left unimpressed.

Second point -- what he is trying to do is not something I want done. Connotative and figurative language is essential. Ambiguity of meaning and the potential for interpretation are vital parts of the communication process [in those contexts in which such openness of meaning is useful]. A language which denudes communication of shades of meaning strips it of its ability to communicate all the vagaries of human experience.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

No, but my view does represent the research in those fields relevant here.


It was designed based on predicate logic. Predicate logic is about syntax, is deliberately intended to be reducible to syntax, and cannot deal with semantics (or, to the extent it can, fails most of the time and certainly fails as a formal system here).

Application of the language would show otherwise.

 

[Curious George]

Humans do not think according to predicate logic (or there already would exist a universal language)

Does how we think affect our language, does our language affect how we think, or both? And how so?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I am coming at this as an outsider. His presentation did nothing to make the language interesting to me. Claims about the logic and simplicity fell flat -- he showed how a sentence which makes perfect sense in English could be reworded into another language in which it makes sense. That's nice, but unnecessary. I got no sense of how this language would make anyone's life easier. Now, that maybe a fault of his presentation and not the language but I am left unimpressed.

Second point -- what he is trying to do is not something I want done. Connotative and figurative language is essential. Ambiguity of meaning and the potential for interpretation are vital parts of the communication process [in those contexts in which such openness of meaning is useful]. A language which denudes communication of shades of meaning strips it of its ability to communicate all the vagaries of human experience.

The language is designed to be able to express more communitves than English for example.

Ambiguity of meaning is only useful in deception.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Does how we think affect our language, does our language affect how we think, or both? And how so?

Both and I really do not feel like explain it all right now.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Application of the language would show otherwise.

The applications are extremely limited. There are no native speakers, there are fewer speakers than there are of other, more bizarre or fantastical languages like Klingon or Elvish (quenya), there are no serious linguistic treatments of the grammar by professional linguists in academic monographs or reference grammars as there are of e.g., quenya, there are no gains from Lojban compared to those of its predecessor, it has not advanced communication nor contributed to formal languages, it is not readily differentiable in nature from Klingon or a host of other constructed languages (and the central differences result in departures from its logical and universal nature), it runs contrary to human thought and communication, as a formal language it is redundant as there already exists a plethora of actually formal languages (set theory, formal logics, computer programming languages, etc.), the entire program of formalizing natural languages entails stripping language of semantic content and is therefore doomed, the neural and cognitive underpinnings of language run contrary to the foundations of Lojban, and apart from a popular support and a few books the entire project has given us nothing and no indication that it can (particularly when compared with other languages of the same kind). Have you read What is Lobjan? and The Complete Lobjan Language?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

The applications are extremely limited. There are no native speakers, there are fewer speakers than there are of other, more bizarre or fantastical languages like Klingon or Elvish (quenya), there are no serious linguistic treatments of the grammar by professional linguists in academic monographs or reference grammars as there are of e.g., quenya, there are no gains from Lojban compared to those of its predecessor, it has not advanced communication nor contributed to formal languages, it is not readily differentiable in nature from Klingon or a host of other constructed languages (and the central differences result in departures from its logical and universal nature), it runs contrary to human thought and communication, as a formal language it is redundant as there already exists a plethora of actually formal languages (set theory, formal logics, computer programming languages, etc.), the entire program of formalizing natural languages entails stripping language of semantic content and is therefore doomed, the neural and cognitive underpinnings of language run contrary to the foundations of Lojban, and apart from a popular support and a few books the entire project has given us nothing and no indication that it can (particularly when compared with other languages of the same kind). Have you read What is Lobjan? and The Complete Lobjan Language?

Not a single statement you typed was factual.

You are wasting my time, goodbye.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The language is designed to be able to express more communitves than English for example.

It was based on English (and several other of the most widely spoken languages) and designed around limiting these languages expressive power:
"Loglan (a logical language) was originally developed in the 1950s by James Cooke Brown as a empirical tool to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, in which “the native speaker of any language is fated to see reality, and to think about it, exclusively on the terms and by the rules laid down for him by that language—unless he learns a new one.” (Brown 1960: 53) An early version described in Scientific American “was to have a small, easily learned vocabulary derived from the word stock of as many of the major natural languages as proved feasible (though it was not intended to be an auxiliary international language).” (Brown 1960: 55). The grammar is based on predicate calculus and intended to be ambiguity-free. The vocabulary—the lexicon—was designed to be generated by an algorithm..." (emphasis added)
Olsen, N. (2003). Marketing an International Auxiliary Language: Challenges to a New Artificial Language. Journal of Universal Language 4.

Ambiguity of meaning is only useful in deception.

Meaning is ambiguous. Development in mathematics and logic over the past centuries has depended upon rigor, which is the stripping away of meaning to formulations. Computers are the ultimate evidence here, as they do not tolerate ambiguity. Computers are physical instantiations of formal logic. All programs must strip away any meaning in order for computers to process them, as computers are not capable of conceptual processing, merely syntactical manipulation. No ambiguity= no meaning.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It was based on English (and several other of the most widely spoken languages) and designed around limiting these languages expressive power:
"Loglan (a logical language) was originally developed in the 1950s by James Cooke Brown as a empirical tool to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, in which “the native speaker of any language is fated to see reality, and to think about it, exclusively on the terms and by the rules laid down for him by that language—unless he learns a new one.” (Brown 1960: 53) An early version described in Scientific American “was to have a small, easily learned vocabulary derived from the word stock of as many of the major natural languages as proved feasible (though it was not intended to be an auxiliary international language).” (Brown 1960: 55). The grammar is based on predicate calculus and intended to be ambiguity-free. The vocabulary—the lexicon—was designed to be generated by an algorithm..." (emphasis added)
Olsen, N. (2003). Marketing an International Auxiliary Language: Challenges to a New Artificial Language. Journal of Universal Language 4.


Meaning is ambiguous. Development in mathematics and logic over the past centuries has depended upon rigor, which is the stripping away of meaning to formulations. Computers are the ultimate evidence here, as they do not tolerate ambiguity. Computers are physical instantiations of formal logic. All programs must strip away any meaning in order for computers to process them, as computers are not capable of conceptual processing, merely syntactical manipulation. No ambiguity= no meaning.

Rhetoric.