Re: Better Communication of Ideas

["c1tk" <tk1@despammed.com>]

Hello all,
         
[sshiskom:]
         
> I'm confused. Leo says languages can be made simpler, more regular,
> more systematic. And then he asks if they can be made "better".
> Isn't being simpler, more regular, more systematic, a good thing?

I think, sometimes not. A simpler, more regular, more systematic
language may also be more verbose, thus in a way another language may
be "better". (Indeed, when I e.g. try to translate stuff to Lojban, I
often have to insert lots of slack words in order not to convey a
totally _different_ meaning; this is not the same as conveying the
same meaning ambiguously.) I suppose a language designer will have to
regularly deal with the tensions from such conflicting goals.

As far as clear communication goes, these are some things I like about
Lojban:

1. Descriptors. Words like {le}, {lo}, {lo'e} indicate precisely which 
   objects are being referenced. This can clear up things a lot,
   especially in discussions on philosophy. <<insert rant here about
   bogus philosopher who kept harping on statement "A is A">>  

2. Unambiguous logical connectives -- enough said. My only complaint
   is that the definition of the connectives assumes an
   Aristotlean/Boolean world view, and cannot adequately express
   other logics, e.g. intuitionistic logic.

Thanks,
--
GPG:faf73a82 http://bicoherent.topcities.com/
GCS/MU d- s: a- C++() UL P++(+++) L++(+++) E- W++ N(+) o K? w--- O? M?
V? PS(+) PE Y+ PGP+ t? 5? X- R- tv-() b+ DI(+) D+ G e++ h-- !r>+++ !y