WMsearch
/blag/

the-language-this-word-belongs-to

sat8dec2007—49w342d93%—01h24m00s—0utc
★ favorites, epiphanies, languages, impossible ideas, formist, whimsicist, droll, announces, esperanto, recursion, metaphors, design, information design, language learning, words, promises, art, original content

Starting an artificial language has been a recurrent dream of mine. As a subscriber to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that the shape of our language is the shape of our thought), a believer in ending Babel through an auxlang, a pathological formist, and an admirer of the grace, elegance, and pleasure to be found in conlangs such as Esperanto and toki pona, I believe the enterprise worth a lifetime, worth my lifetime.

But of course, given my extremist bent, I want to start an artificial language that subsumes all languages. A language to make languages, like in John Varley’s beautiful Persistence of Vision. An extensible language to gobble up and be enriched by the thoughts and feelings of as many souls as the universe will ever have. A perfectly regular language that can be learned in a week but never mastered. The creation of a self-conscious, language-obsessed culture but learnable by the illiterate. A language so abstract and basic, it can be embodied inside any symbolic system, be it based on sounds, graphics, gestures, raised dots, or farts; be it English, Maori, or Farsi. A language of infinite expressibility, synthetic and analytic, vague and precise, formal and casual, exquisite and coarse. A language that will outlast the stars.

The key, I think, lies in internal flexibility. The ideal is to do for language what the Hindu-Arabic numeral system did for numbers. Not only will there be no arbitrary, capricious limits to word creation, it will be a language of pure word creation, able to convey books in a word, lifetimes in a sentence. It will be a language complete in itself yet always growing.

After years of frenzying about it late at night, the language finally got its first name, despite it not yet having a transliteration, let alone any words. It’s self-referentially called, among infinite names, the-language-this-word-belongs-to.

𝕏 Follow me  |  ⌂ Back to ELZR.com

3 Comments

oliverd

Sounds like what you’re after is a conversational form of Lisp :)

To be honest I’ve never understood the desire to construct languages. I can see the utility of something like Lojban <small>(i.e. as an intermediary for machine translation)</small>, but semantic drift happens so fast that no sooner have you come up with the-one-language-to-rule-them-all than it’ll start devolving into mutially incomprehensible dialects. But then again I’m dyslexic and have always found thinking about images easier than thinking about words, so what do I know?

On a related note, but have you seen the MediaGlyph project? I only bring it up because a few days ago slashdot mentioned Idiocracy <small>(which may be seen on YouTube)</small>, a movie in which most of the population is functionally illiterate but can still operate complex machinery thanks to a well designed system of ideograms.

Finally, Babel-17 is a fun novel if you’re a strong supporter of Sapir-Whorf.
elzr

Yes! I should definitely learn me some Lisp (and some Lojban and some Chinese) for this pipedream of mine.

Thanks for the awesome recommendations, MediaGlyph is as bizarre as it is intriguing (I had read about them in Diamond Age, never thought they were for real), Idiocracy looks a lot of fun (I’m downloading it), and Babel-17 has a fascinating premise.

As for semantic drift, yes, it’s one of the major problems, but maybe we can design for it, make it part of the language.

Are you really dyslexic? If so, do MediaGlyph sound like a good idea to you? Is some general language easier for you than others? Could you give me an example of thinking with images (I’m so verbally oriented…)?
oliverd

Sorry for not replying sooner!

> dyslexic?
Yes, but only very mildly. With the aid of a spellchecker I’m fine.

> do hieroglyphs and their ilk seem good idea?
For basic user interfaces, yes definitely; for more complex communication, no way—far too much subtle meaning would be lost.

> languages
I’m afraid I only know English, though German and Spanish would be handy, and as you imply we’ll all probably have to learn Chinese at some point.

> can you give an example of thinking in images?
Probably not, it’s a bit like trying to explain muscle memory or proprioception in words. I can’t remember anything for more than a couple of days without imagining a picture of it, if that helps.