Is a Logically Perfect Language Possible?

[TsunamiJoe]

i didnt say japanese was a perfect language, when setting my parameters for a perfect language i included asian languages as a good example of using primarily phonetic words, and a logical sentance structure

 

[Philocrat]

i didnt say japanese was a perfect language, when setting my parameters for a perfect language i included asian languages as a good example of using primarily phonetic words, and a logical sentance structure

Ok, correction taken. Come to think of it, I have never really thought of what Parameters are actually relevant in the construction of an LPL apart from those set forth in Wittgenstein's 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'. As Russell made it very clear in his introduction of Tractatus, the parameters needed for the construction of an LPL were those relevant to Logic alone, hence several parameters, including psychological elements, were for obvious reasons excluded. The issue that you raise here about parameters for LPL now poses a new fundamental question: What Parameters, other than those proposed and defined by Analytical Philosophers like Wittgenstein, Russell, Frege and others, are necessary in the construction of an LPL that may genuinely pass as a Universal Language?

Now, you have suggested 'Phonetic Precision', but then what can be added to the following list:

PARAMETERS FOR CONSTRUCTING A LOGICALLY PRECISE LANGUAGE

PARAMETER 1: Phonetic Precision

PARAMETER 2: Logically Precise Symbols or Forms

PARAMETER 3: Speed/Rate of Assimilation or communication

PARAMETER 4: Ease of Leaning and Understanding

PARAMETER 5:

PARAMETER 6

PARAMETER 7

PARAMETER n

Can you think of anything else that can be added to this list as a potential parameter? Don't worry about being wrong because we are going to examine in detail the merit or warrant for each parameter on the course of this debate. Whatever you or anyone else suggests we are going to look at what exactly it can contribute to our target LPL. So, how many more viable parameters are out there?

 

[TsunamiJoe]

what about flexibility in personal word formation?

what i mean is that things like gooder and such are for some reason not wanted in english, but there's not much proof against the fact, other than the scholars dislike it.

 

[Philocrat]

what about flexibility in personal word formation?

what i mean is that things like gooder and such are for some reason not wanted in english, but there's not much proof against the fact, other than the scholars dislike it.

Yes, Flexibility should be included at least for now.

PARAMETERS FOR CONSTRUCTING A LOGICALLY PRECISE LANGUAGE

PARAMETER 1: Phonetic Precision

PARAMETER 2: Logically Precise Symbols or Forms

PARAMETER 3: Speed/Rate of Assimilation or communication

PARAMETER 4: Ease of Leaning and Understanding

PARAMETER 5: Flexibility

PARAMETER 6

PARAMETER 7

PARAMETER n

We will look at it properly later, but for now the only drawback that I can immediately see with flexibility is that it affects the notion of 'Standardisation' as already set out by the linguists. It will also affect the notion of constructing a Logically Perfect Dictionaly (LPD) of symbols with regards to containing logically precise symbols with each having one meaning and one meaning only. Well, one of my friends had vehemently argued against this 2 years ago in that such a Dictionary would just be too restrictive, apart from the fact that it would bankrupt thesaurus from the very day of its existence.

Lastly and most importantly, flexibility may be useful in the construction, to develop symbols that can be adjusted at will to suit people of wide range of natural perceptual and learning abilities. That is, it will permit the construction of 'Flexible Extensional Symbols' (FES) that cater for people of a wide range of learning and perceptual abilities. This, theoretically, may be Ok if it was aimed at improving and consolidating the communication process between people of such wide ranging abilities. But then again, as you know, the devil is usually in the detail and practicality. Anyway, We shall see.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

Interconnected root meanings would allow words to be easily learned and applied... The root word should be simple like starting (here for example) out with sky, not atmosphere.

porf means "sky", porf-e-le means "cloud" and porf-e-em means "atmosphere".

Let me explain: porf means "sky". -e- means "in (or an addition of the original, the original being sky in this case)". And le means "white".

The word would come out to be porf-e-le (pernounce it just like it sounds) or "the white in sky" which are clouds. In that way the word can be easily described. The actual word "cloud" would be porfle (that is without the -i-).

 

[nnnnnnnn]

Let me be asking a stupid question sound-like, at least one in my life [honestly, i did it loads in childhood ] :

So, if God exists as a fact...so perfect language could exists if God use it to communicate with humans? Does it?

Yeah yeah, i am not branching to thread to "God existence issue"

there is a simple answer and that is that because the babel fish exists (and ironically the babel fish has to do with language so your comment is in the right thread), God doesn't...

Anyway a logically perfect language, under the circumstances you've stated- avoiding nonsence, would be any programming language or possibly even electrical engineering to a degree. Math too would fit though all of these fail to be able to encumpass (sp?) every aspect of relevant subject matters.

The reason for language is to think. You use concepts to understand and expand what you know about the world. I'm not sure that its necessarily language that can/cant be perfectly logical but the people who use it...

 

[TsunamiJoe]

well atmosphere i believe is latin...as are nearly all scientific words, and if not latin, usualy they are greek, which tend to have long words because they combine words together

and who cares if thesaurus goes bankrupt? i mean if we are including the futures of companies in on something then it is already flawed because they are influenced by it, similar to the belief that military companies should not have ties in government, in order to prevent the will to war just to manufacture

all i was saying is to not disallow certain prefixes or suffixes on any words, and have the base word and then add things onto it - also if we ought to determine what our charactor set will be standardised upon, whether its the alphabet, where each letter is seperated, or the Eastern Asian charactor sets, where more often one symbol is one word

personaly i would go for EA sets, because then we can have a base word be a simple symbol, then add onto the exterior all of its adjectives, such as blue sky and red sky would be differint sets, but sky would be in both, but a modifying line would distinguish between red and blue

Though i personaly don't believe the written part of a language should be dumbed down for a generaly ignorant society, because, obviously, everyone has differint handwriting, all varying from good to sloppy - whereas the disbenifit to sloppy EA writing, is that often if you misinterpret merely one or a few lines, you can end up with a differint word, or no word at all

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

Forgive me, I was leading my self into a rut with the examples. However, a verb rich and root rich language would be very useful. And I am not talking specifically about latin or greek roots, they can be new roots used only in the new language.