Better Communication of Ideas

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Forwarded with the author's permission.  I have set Reply-to: to him.
Leo's not on Lojban List, so you may want to use "Reply All".

----- Forwarded message from "Leo J. Moser" <leo@acadon.com> -----

To: <langdev@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Leo J. Moser" <leo@acadon.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:09:13 -0700
Subject: [langdev] Better Communication of Ideas

Laho,

I have a question that begins with Lojban. This is not 
only to John Cowan, though he may be the one with 
the most info. on this specific aspect of the subject.  It 
also goes to any who have explored Lojban and used
and/or tested it in any way. 

And then on to all of you.

I ask this as well of any other artlang with similar logical 
goals -- or with the aim of providing more effective 
communication than is typical of natlangs.

What are the words and related vocabulary/terminology 
features of Lojban (in contrast to a natlang like English) 
that are found by users to be the most useful in actual
practice. I'm talking not of the overall structure or its 
logical system, more of specific terms and/or grammatical
particles that are found useful in communicating more 
clearly.

In this, the comments of users is most important. What
words, particles, terms, do they "fall in love with" in
Lojban -- and find sadly lacking in all or many natlangs? 

What helps in everyday communication?

Also I would like to know what artlangs any of you 
have made or learned about that have the goal of more 
effective communication of ideas. (Among humans -- 
effective communication in other species would differ 
with sensory systems, etc.)

In the IAL world, Ido attempted to be more logical
than E-o in many ways. Yet things like three tenses
for infinitives did not seem favored in practice. Among
natlangs, there are some that are often claimed to
be more logical than others. (Some Francophones 
insist that French is far more logical than English.) 
Is there any evidence that some natlangs are more 
logical than others -- or otherwise better instruments 
of human communication? 

(Exclude size of vocabulary: Inuit may not have a term 
for some aspect of the genome structure. Also exclude 
writing systems, some are clearly easier and more 
efficient.)

The problem looms: Can artlangs be engineered to be 
better for practical communication than existing natlangs? 
They can, of course, be made simpler (like Dublex ), 
more regular in operation (like Ido), more systematic
(like Lojban ). But can they be made BETTER (once 
learned and in use) as instruments for communication 
and understanding?

If so, how?

What is lacking in natlangs that systems like that of
Lojban or Vorlin can supply? This inquiry begins by
asking about needed words and grammatical particles,
etc. but can go beyond -- if there is much to say.

Torvonwa,
                                                          LEO




----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Evolutionary psychology is the theory           John Cowan
that men are nothing but horn-dogs,             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and that women only want them for their money.  http://www.reutershealth.com
        --Susan McCarthy (adapted)              jcowan@reutershealth.com