| 10 Mar 2024 |
 @partime:matrix.org | * Meh, I do think that binging on alcohol is stupid. Anyway I am not calling the language stupid. It's very interesting. I just don't think the language gets any closer to the substance of its underlying philosophy (than mainstream speech) in practice. | 10:48:10 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Meh, I do think that binging on alcohol is stupid. Watching car races or collecting stamps is far less stupid. Anyway I am not calling the language stupid. It's very interesting. I just don't think the language gets any closer to the substance of its underlying philosophy (than mainstream speech) in practice. | 10:54:31 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Meh, I do think that binging on alcohol is stupid. Watching car races or collecting stamps is far less stupid (what's the stupidtity-worthiness axis called?). Anyway I am not calling the language stupid. It's very interesting. I just don't think the language gets any closer to the substance of its underlying philosophy (than mainstream speech) in practice. | 10:54:52 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Meh, I do think that binging on alcohol is stupid. Watching car races or collecting stamps is far less stupid (what's the stupid-worthy axis called? We could improve a lot). Anyway I am not calling the language stupid. It's very interesting. I just don't think the language gets any closer to the substance of its underlying philosophy (than mainstream speech) in practice. | 10:55:12 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Meh, I do think that binging on alcohol is stupid. Watching car races or collecting stamps is far less stupid. Anyway I am not calling the language stupid. It's very interesting. I just don't think the language gets any closer to the substance of its underlying philosophy (than mainstream speech) in practice. | 10:56:10 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Meh, I do think that binging on alcohol is stupid. Watching car races or collecting stamps is far less stupid. Anyway I am not calling the language stupid. It's very interesting and one of a kind. I just don't think the language gets any closer to the substance of its underlying philosophy (than mainstream speech) in practice. | 10:56:22 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Meh, I do think that binging on alcohol is stupid. Watching car races or collecting stamps is far less stupid. Anyway I am not calling the language stupid. It's very interesting and one of a kind. I just don't think the language gets any closer to the substance of its underlying philosophy in practice (than mainstream speech which is both usable and compressable). | 10:58:05 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Meh, I do think that binging on alcohol is stupid. Watching car races or collecting stamps is far less stupid. Anyway I am not calling the language stupid. It's very interesting and one of a kind. I just don't think the language gets any closer to the substance of its underlying philosophy in practice (than mainstream speech which is capable of similar nuance, as well compressable). | 10:58:38 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Meh, I do think that binging on alcohol is stupid. Watching car races or collecting stamps is far less stupid. Anyway I am not calling the language stupid. It's very interesting and one of a kind. I just don't think the language gets any closer to the substance of its underlying philosophy in practice (than mainstream speech which is capable of similar nuance and compressible, while also easier on our resources to work with ). | 10:59:32 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Meh, I do think that binging on alcohol is stupid. Watching car races or collecting stamps is far less stupid. Anyway I am not calling the language stupid. It's very interesting and one of a kind. I just don't think the language gets any closer to the substance of its underlying philosophy in practice (than mainstream speech which is capable of similar nuance and possibly as compressible, while also being easier on our resources to work with). | 10:59:53 |
 Ulriko | Mainstream speech is full of flaws. And even the elaborated code. Inconsistencies of language had many juridical and political consequences throughout history, and multiple misunderstandings on an hourly basis is the norm. Even famous philosophical disputes were based on grammatical weaknesses of the language used, and thus became strange or funny when translated into a more precise language. And another cause of semantic errors is homonymy. Which especially English shows to a much-above-average degree. | 11:36:13 |
| Ulriko | Certainly for sure, 60% of these flaws could be fixed easily by a conlang like Volapük, Esperanto, or Ido, and another 30% by avoiding homonymy (which also massively exists in Esperanto and Ido, and even more in ILa and ILe). Then add Loglan-grammar to care for another 15%. | 11:36:26 |
| Ulriko | For sure, Ithkuil is not a sensible solution for humans (or anybody, but AI could check it out), as it is overcomplicated and (intentionally) low in information redundancy. | 11:39:17 |
| Ulriko | * Certainly, 60% of these flaws could be fixed easily by a conlang like Volapük, Esperanto, or Ido, and another 30% by avoiding homonymy (which also massively exists in Esperanto and Ido, and even more in ILa and ILe). Then add Loglan-grammar to care for another 15%. | 11:39:56 |
| @partime:matrix.org | In reply to @ulriko:matrix.org
For sure, Ithkuil is not a sensible solution for humans (or anybody, but AI could check it out), as it is overcomplicated and (intentionally) low in information redundancy. I feel AI would simply make use of neural spaces than a serialized encoding. | 13:07:39 |
| @partime:matrix.org | Maybe there is a place for it amongst higher beings. | 13:08:23 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Maybe there is a place for it amongst higher beings but then they could come up with even exotic ones by themselves. | 13:08:54 |
| Ulriko | Right. | 14:13:19 |
| Ulriko | But as a brain play, it's an interesting experiment. Far more interesting than e.g. Interlingua/Gode. | 14:14:40 |
| 11 Mar 2024 |
| @partime:matrix.org | Is there a comprehensive comparative research on various spoken languages/families, outlining their strengths and weaknesses (from a purely structural standpoint and not in respect to their popularity)? eg: Accessibility hierarchies in relative clauses, case hierarchies, non-backtracking encoding of continuous thought streams, etc.? | 02:40:03 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Is there a comprehensive comparative research on various spoken languages/families, outlining their strengths and weaknesses (from a purely structural standpoint and not in respect to their popularity)? eg: Accessibility hierarchies in relative clauses, case hierarchies, non-backtracking encoding of continuous thought streams, etc. | 02:40:10 |
| @partime:matrix.org | * Is there a comprehensive comparative research on various spoken languages/families, outlining their strengths and weaknesses (from a purely structural standpoint and not in respect to their popularity)? eg: Accessibility hierarchies in relative clauses, case hierarchies, word order flexibility, information density, aesthetics, performance under noise, regularity, non-backtracking encoding of continuous thought streams, etc. | 02:40:56 |
| @partime:matrix.org | I'd like to see what aspects are independent (thus may be simultaneously optimized to an extent) and which ones are tradeoffs (eg: density vs noise performance). | 02:42:53 |
 Svalbarrd | How do you all think a language of whistling would work if you consider actual languages that use whistling? | 17:32:12 |
| Svalbarrd | How do you think thinking in a whistle language would work? | 17:32:29 |
 encapsulate | Check out Silbo Gomera. It’s a whistle-based language used in the Canary Islands.
Wikipedia article says:
“Silbo Gomera is a transposition of Spanish from speech to whistling. This oral phoneme-whistled phoneme substitution emulates Spanish phonology through a reduced set of whistled phonemes” | 17:41:12 |
| encapsulate | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbo_Gomero | 17:41:42 |
| Svalbarrd | Fascinating. | 17:41:46 |
| encapsulate | The ‘Cognitive features’ section of that wiki article says that brain imaging studies showed that non-speakers process Silbo just as whistling, but speakers process it “in the same linguistic centers of the brain that process Spanish sentences”. | 17:45:34 |
| Ulriko | In reply to @svalbarrd:matrix.org
How do you think thinking in a whistle language would work? I'm not sure whether I think in language, although language often is a thought-about entity. | 19:25:37 |
