[quote=name:Rantent]"Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe, all mimsy were the borrogoves, and the mome wraths outgrabe." (Quoted from memory.) would be a perfectly understandable sentence at first glance[/quote] i can't say i understand any part of your intended meaning...

Quote from Rantent

"Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe, all mimsy were the borrogoves, and the mome wraths outgrabe." (Quoted from memory.) would be a perfectly understandable sentence at first glance

i can't say i understand any part of your intended meaning...

If only Auditors only spoke Lojban, then they wouldn't explode so much (if you don't know what Auditors are, READ MOAR TERRY PRATCHETT)

If only Auditors only spoke Lojban, then they wouldn't explode so much (if you don't know what Auditors are, READ MOAR TERRY PRATCHETT)

[quote=name:Rantent][quote=Tuxlar]If language DOES dictate thought, then only willful ignorance could allow you to dismiss this.[/quote] Except it DOESN'T... Thought dictates language. Thinking often happens without language, although language cannot be used without thought. (Although some people come awful close.) Language is simply a way to convey ideas from one person to another, the only byproduct which language has on internal thought is the order in which we arrange our thoughts. We package our internal ideas in a manner so that we may communicate them to others. The concepts themselves do not change when you change the language used, only the packaging in which they are delivered. But onto the subject of Lojban. As long as a language is used, it will develop inherent misinterpretations. The reason Lojban remains logical and without exception is because nobody uses it. The same argument could be made for Latin, or many other dead languages. The fact that nobody uses the language maeans that no double meanings can develop, no innuendos can form, and no emotion can be described. But as soon as it is spoken regularly, it will develop these issues, and people will make it just like any other language. In my opinion, this language is one of the worst, as it is designed to be simple to understand. The more complex a language, the more complex thinking must be required to speak it, and therefor the more complex thought processes a person will be using in using the language. In this way, an illogical language would promote original thinking. Simple language leads to simple thoughts.[/quote] Anglophones think in English, francophones think in French. What do people who cannot speak a language think in? Lojban speakers would think in Lojban.

Quote from Rantent

Quote from Tuxlar

If language DOES dictate thought, then only willful ignorance could allow you to dismiss this.

Except it DOESN'T... Thought dictates language.
Thinking often happens without language, although language cannot be used without thought. (Although some people come awful close.)
Language is simply a way to convey ideas from one person to another, the only byproduct which language has on internal thought is the order in which we arrange our thoughts. We package our internal ideas in a manner so that we may communicate them to others. The concepts themselves do not change when you change the language used, only the packaging in which they are delivered.

But onto the subject of Lojban. As long as a language is used, it will develop inherent misinterpretations. The reason Lojban remains logical and without exception is because nobody uses it. The same argument could be made for Latin, or many other dead languages. The fact that nobody uses the language maeans that no double meanings can develop, no innuendos can form, and no emotion can be described. But as soon as it is spoken regularly, it will develop these issues, and people will make it just like any other language.

In my opinion, this language is one of the worst, as it is designed to be simple to understand. The more complex a language, the more complex thinking must be required to speak it, and therefor the more complex thought processes a person will be using in using the language. In this way, an illogical language would promote original thinking. Simple language leads to simple thoughts.

Anglophones think in English, francophones think in French. What do people who cannot speak a language think in?

Lojban speakers would think in Lojban.

[quote=name:Syphon]Anglophones think in English, francophones think in French. What do people who cannot speak a language think in?[/quote] I think there's a layer beneath language that allows people to think in "raw" terms. This layer might be what Rantent is implying with intuitive language. But I'm not sure you could harness this with people to make a language itself out of. [quote]Lojban speakers would think in Lojban.[/quote] Lojbophones?

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Anglophones think in English, francophones think in French. What do people who cannot speak a language think in?

I think there's a layer beneath language that allows people to think in "raw" terms. This layer might be what Rantent is implying with intuitive language. But I'm not sure you could harness this with people to make a language itself out of.

Quote

Lojban speakers would think in Lojban.

Lojbophones?

[quote=name:Tuxedo-Templar][quote=name:Syphon]Anglophones think in English, francophones think in French. What do people who cannot speak a language think in?[/quote] I think there's a layer beneath language that allows people to think in "raw" terms. This layer might be what Rantent is implying with intuitive language. But I'm not sure you could harness this with people to make a language itself out of. [quote]Lojban speakers would think in Lojban.[/quote] Lojbophones?[/quote] I'd say Logiphones. :p The raw terms is just thinking with instinct. "I'm hungry" would pop up, but not "To get to C, I must do A, then B."

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Anglophones think in English, francophones think in French. What do people who cannot speak a language think in?

I think there's a layer beneath language that allows people to think in "raw" terms. This layer might be what Rantent is implying with intuitive language. But I'm not sure you could harness this with people to make a language itself out of.

Quote

Lojban speakers would think in Lojban.

Lojbophones?

I'd say Logiphones.

The raw terms is just thinking with instinct. "I'm hungry" would pop up, but not "To get to C, I must do A, then B."

Every word should be an Onomatopoeia. That would be so fun to discuss anything in.

Every word should be an Onomatopoeia.
That would be so fun to discuss anything in.

The biggest problem with lojban is that there's no ambiguity, as such, there would be no puns. :'( On a more serious note, I doubt that people think in language. People think in ideas. It's just difficult to portray those ideas without using language (which is the whole purpose of language, isn't it?). For example, the brain can (very easily) store information that you can't describe with language, which disproves that theory right there. Another problem with using a logic-based language arises in scenarios without logic, or in which the logic is impossible or difficult to understand, or just isn't there. Imagine trying to explain quantum mechanics. In these cases ambiguity is [i]required[/i] because it allows a person to easily make a jump from one concept to another. (i.e. analogies are built off a foundation of ambiguity.)

The biggest problem with lojban is that there's no ambiguity, as such, there would be no puns. :'(

On a more serious note, I doubt that people think in language. People think in ideas. It's just difficult to portray those ideas without using language (which is the whole purpose of language, isn't it?). For example, the brain can (very easily) store information that you can't describe with language, which disproves that theory right there.

Another problem with using a logic-based language arises in scenarios without logic, or in which the logic is impossible or difficult to understand, or just isn't there. Imagine trying to explain quantum mechanics. In these cases ambiguity is required because it allows a person to easily make a jump from one concept to another. (i.e. analogies are built off a foundation of ambiguity.)

I really like the idea of the lajban language, I just don't think it will ever happen. The practical use of the language < the practical implementation on the people. Similar to how USA still uses standard(why is it called standard if only 3 countries use it :bleh: ) and metric measurement systems. No one will switch because old people that already learned it find it too confusing...

I really like the idea of the lajban language, I just don't think it will ever happen. The practical use of the language < the practical implementation on the people. Similar to how USA still uses standard(why is it called standard if only 3 countries use it ) and metric measurement systems. No one will switch because old people that already learned it find it too confusing...

[quote=name:Laser Dude]On a more serious note, I doubt that people think in language. People think in ideas. It's just difficult to portray those ideas without using language (which is the whole purpose of language, isn't it?). For example, the brain can (very easily) store information that you can't describe with language, which disproves that theory right there.[/quote] Well, I think that is mostly true, but yeah language is about [i]sharing[/i] ideas between people. The language DOES have an effect on how ideas get shared, as ideas can only be shared according the the terms and constraints available of the language they're being communicated in. And that is where language has its control on thought; both in determining what kind of thought is needed for a sender to correctly send a given idea, and for the receiver to correctly receive the sent message. Because of this, using Lojban would almost certainly encourage people to apply logical thinking in general to a greater degree. The value of that [i]more logically thinking people[/i] alone could be immeasurable in the long run. [quote]Another problem with using a logic-based language arises in scenarios without logic, or in which the logic is impossible or difficult to understand, or just isn't there. Imagine trying to explain quantum mechanics. In these cases ambiguity is [i]required[/i] because it allows a person to easily make a jump from one concept to another. (i.e. analogies are built off a foundation of ambiguity.)[/quote] Ambiguity is possible with words and terms in Lojban. Just not in the [i]usage[/i] of the language. There ought to be no way to mistake what someone is saying, but their meaning can still be ambiguous. If that makes sense. :P At least, that's what I've come to understand. It's not like E-prime, necessarily. [quote=name:Jello-Jigglers]I really like the idea of the lajban language, I just don't think it will ever happen. The practical use of the language < the practical implementation on the people. Similar to how USA still uses standard(why is it called standard if only 3 countries use it :bleh: ) and metric measurement systems. No one will switch because old people that already learned it find it too confusing...[/quote] You hit it. That'd be the key reason. It would have to come down to some form of necessity, as a start, but the vast majority of people will just be of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mindset. I say we start a new society on an isolated island comprised purely of intellectuals who speak only Lojban. Brilliant idea, no? :bleh:

Quote from Laser Dude

On a more serious note, I doubt that people think in language. People think in ideas. It's just difficult to portray those ideas without using language (which is the whole purpose of language, isn't it?). For example, the brain can (very easily) store information that you can't describe with language, which disproves that theory right there.

Well, I think that is mostly true, but yeah language is about sharing ideas between people. The language DOES have an effect on how ideas get shared, as ideas can only be shared according the the terms and constraints available of the language they're being communicated in. And that is where language has its control on thought; both in determining what kind of thought is needed for a sender to correctly send a given idea, and for the receiver to correctly receive the sent message.

Because of this, using Lojban would almost certainly encourage people to apply logical thinking in general to a greater degree. The value of that more logically thinking people alone could be immeasurable in the long run.

Quote

Another problem with using a logic-based language arises in scenarios without logic, or in which the logic is impossible or difficult to understand, or just isn't there. Imagine trying to explain quantum mechanics. In these cases ambiguity is required because it allows a person to easily make a jump from one concept to another. (i.e. analogies are built off a foundation of ambiguity.)

Ambiguity is possible with words and terms in Lojban. Just not in the usage of the language. There ought to be no way to mistake what someone is saying, but their meaning can still be ambiguous. If that makes sense.

At least, that's what I've come to understand. It's not like E-prime, necessarily.

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

I really like the idea of the lajban language, I just don't think it will ever happen. The practical use of the language < the practical implementation on the people. Similar to how USA still uses standard(why is it called standard if only 3 countries use it ) and metric measurement systems. No one will switch because old people that already learned it find it too confusing...

You hit it. That'd be the key reason. It would have to come down to some form of necessity, as a start, but the vast majority of people will just be of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mindset.


I say we start a new society on an isolated island comprised purely of intellectuals who speak only Lojban. Brilliant idea, no?