Re: A question of semantics

John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
>
> If you are interested in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and artificial
> languages, I point you to http://www.lojban.org .
>
> > I subscribed to this mailing list for one main purpose: curiosity
> > on whether the designers of artificial languages are interested in
> > adding semantic concepts that are not present in existing natural
> > languages, and in investigating whether the use of such languages
> > changes people's ways of thinking.  Purely out of academic
> > interest (a.k.a. a butterfly mind) you understand, but I think that
> > Sapir and Whorf (whoever they were) would understand :-)
>
> This is indeed one of the purposes of Lojban.   Lojban can be and has
> been discussed here, but it also has its own mailing lists.
Thanks very much.  I probably was still making myself abundantly
unclear!  Yes, Lojban is interesting, but it is not really addressing
the question I am trying to ask - though it approaches it.  I will
look at it further, though.

As I understand the main intent of Lojban, it is to provide a logical
and unambiguous basis for communicating the concepts that are currently
communicated erratically and ambiguously.  And, yes, using such a
language might well lead to more precise thought processes.  Now, when
I am communicating mathematically, that is the sort of language that
I would want to use.

What I am asking about is NOT a logical or unambiguous approach, but
one that uses different concepts.  In particular, in my example of
uncertainty, the concepts I am thinking of overlap and are themselves
somewhat ill-defined.  I do not regard this as a disadvantage, for the
same reasons that the same properties are not necessarily one in
English.

For obvious reasons, I have EXTREME difficulty in expressing the sort
of concept I am thinking about, but I have a fairly clear mental
image!  It includes the ability to communicate types and levels of
uncertainty that do not correspond with any mathematical (or even
precisely defined) property.  Much as, in English, it is possible
to communicate vague descriptions precisely - which is one skill of
the better poets and other writers.

But I am not just thinking about that example.  There are also cases
where conceptual information relationship and data flow are almost
impossible to express in either English or mathematics, but where
the concepts are imaginable and are of practical relevance.  Again,
I know what I am trying to say but not how to say it :-(

I know that a fair number of other people can think in this sort of
way (and that a small number can think in more than one mode), so I
am interested to know if anyone is experimenting with languages to
express concepts that map badly into both existing natural languages
and mathematics.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:  nmm1@cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679

Reply