6 ms·

Loglan – The Language of Logic

70 points by dpflan 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago
Can anyone versed in Loglan with some familiarity with Esperanto give me the benefits Loglan has over Esperanto? It seems more complex in grammar with more difficult consonant clusters, at a glance.
- gecko 11y ago
  They have nothing in common except being a language. Esperanto is an indo-European conlang designed to be as easy to learn as possible. As such, it borrows vocabulary from as many languages as possible--which, due to when it was made, really means "as many languages in western Europe as possible, plus Polish and Greek"--and has a deliberately simple, minimalist (by spoken language standards) grammar. Loglan, like the more famous Lojban that's inspired by it, attempts to make it possible to speak in a completely unambiguous way. It makes no attempt to be easy to learn and is not designed for casual conversation, although people certainly try. I have no idea why you would learn Loglan over Lojban, since the former has had a couple of copyright feuds with people trying to follow the language and has a much smaller community.
  - housel 11y ago
    The copyright feuds belong to an earlier era, when the original Lojban founders forked the language. Things are a lot more open now, and there is a degree of cooperation between the two conlang projects. Loglan does make an attempt to be easy to learn in that its basic vocabulary words are inspired by words from eight of the world's most-spoken languages. For example "blanu" comes from English "blue", German "blau", and Chinese "藍lan".
    - schoen 11y ago
      I think Lojban also subsequently ran some software to produce some kind of similarity score for creating vocabulary similar to the most-spoken languages. For example https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bangu#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bangu#Etymology I don't know whether the original Loglan project to do this relied only on human creativity or also on software (and whether Lojban used a human editorial step after the software step). https://mw.lojban.org/papri/gismu_etymology https://mw.lojban.org/papri/gismu_etymology http://www.lojban.org/old-style/publications/etymology.html http://www.lojban.org/old-style/publications/etymology.html
      - DougMerritt 11y ago
        > I don't know whether the original Loglan project to do this relied only on human creativity or also on software (and whether Lojban used a human editorial step after the software step). I no longer recall whether Loglan used software for its derivations, but it hardly matters -- both Loglan and Lojban had very similar goals and methods here (although naturally Lojban always tried to improve on the forerunner, Loglan). I encouraged Lojban to normalize to something that could be handled by yacc(1). That turned out to be complicated, although I recall that that goal was at least nominally met.
  - chrisfosterelli 11y ago
    Esperanto definitely has indo-european origins, however it's worth pointing out that native speakers of asian languages still find it drastically easier to learn compared to, for example, English. China, in particular, holds a very notable percentage of the Esperanto community. Esperanto's vocabulary doesn't do them any favours, but the grammar and syntax is relatively easier for them to pick up than most western languages. The vocabulary itself is very small and easy to memorize, since most words are based on combining words.
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  I studied Lojban (http://lojban.org http://lojban.org) a bit out of curiosity many years back (in High School in a deep CONLANG phase), which is a fork of Loglan. I'll speak from the point of view of Lojban, as I know it better, but the fork doesn't fall far from the root so it should all mostly apply to Loglan as well. Essentially, Lojban and Esperanto come from different intentions: Esperanto wanted to be a common tongue that speakers of various natural languages could learn relatively easily and use for multicultural communications. Loglan and Lojban were started as experimentation around the "Strong" Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that language influences mental structure. The goal of these languages was then to see if people used a language with more formal mathematical rigidity/"logic" to it might more easily "think" as better mathematicians. The jury is still out, of course, on whether any of these languages actually do what they set out to do. Essentially, the concept of Lojban/Loglan is kind of a "What if people actually spoke a natural language that was very similar to a programming language?" (Loglan actually predates most programming languages, and Lojban incorporated some things from programming languages over time.) From that respect, the grammar of Lojban is stringently less complex than most natural grammars (and Esperanto). There's an official PEG [Parsing Expression Grammar] specification of Lojban these days and Lojban has worked very hard to keep the language grammar Context-Free (in the Chomsky's Hierarchy/Computational Parsing sense). The language's grammar is much more like a programming language than a natural language. As for the consonant clusters, even the morphology of the words follows a fairly strict parsing pattern. For the most part when reading Lojban/Loglan you only need to pronounce three letters at a time. (This is part of the play in the name LOGical LANguage of the three letter syllable pattern in the language itself. Lojban uses the language's own symbols in its case.) Is there a benefit to Loglan or Lojban over Esperanto? Ultimately I think it's a matter of whether or not there is a benefit of Apples over Oranges: it's more a matter of your particular taste and what you want out of a conlang. They are all beautiful languages trying to do interesting things.
  - DougMerritt 11y ago
    > Loglan actually predates most programming languages Indeed the Scientific American mention of Loglan was 1960 -- after the invention of Cobol, Fortran, and Lisp (and 50's crud like autocoder), but before most everything else. Probably most hear of it for the first time from its prominent mention in Heinlein's Hugo Award-winning "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", where it is the "language" used to program the strong AI that is a major character. I ran a Loglan study group in college, and later studied Lojban, before abandoning conlangs (when I discovered that the strong version of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis is misguided at best -- although conlangs can be interesting for other reasons). > Is there a benefit to Loglan or Lojban over Esperanto? I am no longer so sure that the case is any different for conlangs than for natural languages. If I ask if there's a benefit of French versus Mandarin, people will chime in with their personal favorites and rationalizations for why one is better than the other, but objectively they are both very fine languages for literature and poetry.
ilaksh 11y ago
If you are interested in Conlangs check out ithkuil.
- DougMerritt 11y ago
  It's been many many years since I ran in conlang circles, so I had to refresh my memory: > designed to express deeper levels of human cognition briefly yet overtly and clearly, particularly with regard to human categorization. Ithkuil is notable for its grammatical complexity and extensive phoneme inventory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithkuil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithkuil http://www.ithkuil.net/ http://www.ithkuil.net/
nanofortnight 11y ago
Lojban was inspired by an earlier version of Loglan, and has much the same goals. It also has the advantage of having a far more active community.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/191/ https://xkcd.com/191/
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Exactly. And what about sarcasm, or ambiguity? Social communications needs lots of elbow room.
    - tlholaday 11y ago
      Ambiguity and sarcasm can be accomplished using literary devices. You can find a list at literarydevices.net.
      - tzs 11y ago
        > You can find a list at literarydevices.net Under ad hominem, this example is given: 2. A classic example of ad hominem fallacy is given below: A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn’t a murderer, and so can’t be a criminal." B: "Well, you’re a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument." OK, first of all, A's argument is terrible. He's asserting that all murderers are criminals, but to support the second half of his argument he really needs "all criminals are murderers". But the issue here is B's counterargument, so I'll let A get away with that. How is this an ad hominem fallacy? B is not trying to discredit A's argument by appealing to a logically irrelevant characteristic of A. Rather, B is using A as a counterexample for A's argument. If instead B's argument was: B: "Well, C over there is a thief and criminal, so there goes your argument." that would clearly not be an ad hominem. C provides an example of a person who is both a thief and criminal, which is a class of people that A claimed could not exist. I see no logical reason that a person cannot serve as a refuting counterexample to a claim that they themselves made. If B had said: B: "Well, the jerk store called and they are running out of you, so there goes your argument." that would be an ad hominem, because B is trying to get us to not believe A's argument because of the irrelevancy that the jerk store does a brisk business in A. Another example to illustrate my point. Suppose A is a woman. A: "Women do not fart." (A then at once lets fly a fart as great as if it were a thunder-clap, and B is nearly blinded with the blast) B: "That's not true. You just farted!" Would literarydevices.net claim that this is an ad hominem fallacy?
dpflan 11y ago
Does anyone have experience with the idea of using Loglan or Lojban as the language for humans to 'talk' with AI, rather than using a natural human language? I recently watched an interview with AI expert Ben Goertzel discussing this concept, and it was intriguing.
- maaku 11y ago
  I read your first sentence and was about to respond with a link to Goertzel's paper ;) As far as I know, no one else has worked on this (and at this point it's mostly a brain-fart idea from Goertzel). This is a personal area of interest for me, but in a slightly different way. Modern AI and AGI research has shown that first-order predicate logic (which underlies Loglan/Lojban) is unlikely to be a complete formal framework for rational thought. I am very much interested to see what a language would look like that was instead based on, e.g., probabilistic graphical models. And then see that applied to human-machine communication.
  - dpflan 11y ago
    Interesting. Can you share any more resources or thoughts on the ideas you mention? (Incompleteness of first-order predicate logic and a language based on PGMs)
    - maaku 11y ago
      No, because it's mostly a musing from me, although something I've been thinking about for a long time. I mention it mostly in the unlikely hope that someone runs with it and implements it, cause it'd be something I'd love to use but probably never have the time to make. Hrm. Complete was probably the wrong word. First order logic is complete in the mathematical sense that it can be used to represent and solve any problem, but the issue with AI / AGI is one of practicality. First order logic suffers from term explosion on any non-toy problem, leading to the need for higher order logics (of which there are many), and/or integration with other kinds of systems to manage that complexity. First order logic is also not probabilistic, and dealing well with uncertainty is a hallmark of natural language. Most AGI logic systems are not first order logic, although you can implement FOL in such systems. So better summarized my research question is basically "Practical AI systems need tools beyond what first order logic provides to represent thought. I wonder what would result from applying these extra tools to a logical conlang?" My intuition is that the right way to approach this is to ask "What would a conlang based on probabilistic graphical models look like?" The reason being that PGMs are the underlying theory for most modern approaches to concept representation and knowledge databases. Examples of PGMs are Bayes nets, Markov random fields, and restricted Boltzmann machines, aka the state of the art in modern neural networks. PGMs also underlay to a more limited degree many probabilistic concept network formulations, including the atomspace of OpenCog. So what would a PGM-based conlang look like? I'm not sure actually, but I can tell you it probably wouldn't look much like Loglan / Lojban. It'd be easy to represent any Lojban sentence in this hypothetical PGM language, using the "first order dialect," but the converse is probably not generally true.
hellbanner 11y ago
Just yesterday I was wondering how to send an array to someone (another human).. then realized that we used pointers all the time! Ala "Hey, look up the book called X on page Y" or "Go to street ABC and house 123"
capkutay 11y ago
Yes Loglan can be the official language of our libertarian Seastead Utopia where your status is determined by the aggregate of your HN and reddit karma.
- dpflan 11y ago
  For fun: just add a 'd' to get "Logland". Or become a citizen of Liberland and propose an official language. 1. https://liberland.org/en/about/ https://liberland.org/en/about/ 2. HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400443 3. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-making-of-a-president.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-making-of-a-p...
fernly 11y ago
For an English speaker, studying Lo[gj][lb]an is like taking a dive from C++ into APL or Haskell. There are whole new ways of representing expression. This is why they are not to be compared to Esperanto, whose syntax is deliberately familiar to speakers of European languages, while Lojban's is aggressively different. Consider "conversion" which produces the effects of "passive voice" in English, and more[1]. Inserting a particle converts mi tavla do la javas (I speak to you about Java) do se tavla mi la javas (you are-bespoken by me about Java) la javas te tavla mi do (Java is spoken-about by me to you) Or the possibly overcomplex but rather amazing tense system[2], which allows things such as: mi pu zu ba'o tavla do la javas (I long ago finished talking to you about Java) mi ba reroi do tavla la javas (I will two times talk to you about Java) [1] https://mw.lojban.org/extensions/cll/2/7/ https://mw.lojban.org/extensions/cll/2/7/ [2] https://mw.lojban.org/extensions/cll/10/1/ https://mw.lojban.org/extensions/cll/10/1/
wirrbel 11y ago
Take a look at loglan, lojban out of curiosity if you want to. If you want to spend effort and learn them, reconsider learning "normal" foreign language that comes from another language family. Even if potentially using Loglan/Lojban you might be able to phrase relationships in ways that your native language does not allow, chances are, that you are merely transpiling your native language into loglan. If you learn a foreign language, you will be confronted with material and native speakers of that language, eventually this means that you are faced to learn their concepts and perception of the world. Think about learning a language that is not from the same language family as yours, or at least try to find a language that conceptionally has differences. For all speakers of european languages (English, Romance languages, Welsh/gaelic, Slavic languages), I highly recommend learning Turkish for that matter. It is kind of a logical language in the sense that it has a strong emphasis on grammar and regularity. It is spoken by a whole bunch of Turkish expats all over the world.

70 points by dpflan 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago

Can anyone versed in Loglan with some familiarity with Esperanto give me the benefits Loglan has over Esperanto? It seems more complex in grammar with more difficult consonant clusters, at a glance.

gecko 11y ago
They have nothing in common except being a language. Esperanto is an indo-European conlang designed to be as easy to learn as possible. As such, it borrows vocabulary from as many languages as possible--which, due to when it was made, really means "as many languages in western Europe as possible, plus Polish and Greek"--and has a deliberately simple, minimalist (by spoken language standards) grammar. Loglan, like the more famous Lojban that's inspired by it, attempts to make it possible to speak in a completely unambiguous way. It makes no attempt to be easy to learn and is not designed for casual conversation, although people certainly try. I have no idea why you would learn Loglan over Lojban, since the former has had a couple of copyright feuds with people trying to follow the language and has a much smaller community.
- housel 11y ago
  The copyright feuds belong to an earlier era, when the original Lojban founders forked the language. Things are a lot more open now, and there is a degree of cooperation between the two conlang projects. Loglan does make an attempt to be easy to learn in that its basic vocabulary words are inspired by words from eight of the world's most-spoken languages. For example "blanu" comes from English "blue", German "blau", and Chinese "藍lan".
  - schoen 11y ago
    I think Lojban also subsequently ran some software to produce some kind of similarity score for creating vocabulary similar to the most-spoken languages. For example https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bangu#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bangu#Etymology I don't know whether the original Loglan project to do this relied only on human creativity or also on software (and whether Lojban used a human editorial step after the software step). https://mw.lojban.org/papri/gismu_etymology https://mw.lojban.org/papri/gismu_etymology http://www.lojban.org/old-style/publications/etymology.html http://www.lojban.org/old-style/publications/etymology.html
    - DougMerritt 11y ago
      > I don't know whether the original Loglan project to do this relied only on human creativity or also on software (and whether Lojban used a human editorial step after the software step). I no longer recall whether Loglan used software for its derivations, but it hardly matters -- both Loglan and Lojban had very similar goals and methods here (although naturally Lojban always tried to improve on the forerunner, Loglan). I encouraged Lojban to normalize to something that could be handled by yacc(1). That turned out to be complicated, although I recall that that goal was at least nominally met.
- chrisfosterelli 11y ago
  Esperanto definitely has indo-european origins, however it's worth pointing out that native speakers of asian languages still find it drastically easier to learn compared to, for example, English. China, in particular, holds a very notable percentage of the Esperanto community. Esperanto's vocabulary doesn't do them any favours, but the grammar and syntax is relatively easier for them to pick up than most western languages. The vocabulary itself is very small and easy to memorize, since most words are based on combining words.
WorldMaker 11y ago
I studied Lojban (http://lojban.org http://lojban.org) a bit out of curiosity many years back (in High School in a deep CONLANG phase), which is a fork of Loglan. I'll speak from the point of view of Lojban, as I know it better, but the fork doesn't fall far from the root so it should all mostly apply to Loglan as well. Essentially, Lojban and Esperanto come from different intentions: Esperanto wanted to be a common tongue that speakers of various natural languages could learn relatively easily and use for multicultural communications. Loglan and Lojban were started as experimentation around the "Strong" Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that language influences mental structure. The goal of these languages was then to see if people used a language with more formal mathematical rigidity/"logic" to it might more easily "think" as better mathematicians. The jury is still out, of course, on whether any of these languages actually do what they set out to do. Essentially, the concept of Lojban/Loglan is kind of a "What if people actually spoke a natural language that was very similar to a programming language?" (Loglan actually predates most programming languages, and Lojban incorporated some things from programming languages over time.) From that respect, the grammar of Lojban is stringently less complex than most natural grammars (and Esperanto). There's an official PEG [Parsing Expression Grammar] specification of Lojban these days and Lojban has worked very hard to keep the language grammar Context-Free (in the Chomsky's Hierarchy/Computational Parsing sense). The language's grammar is much more like a programming language than a natural language. As for the consonant clusters, even the morphology of the words follows a fairly strict parsing pattern. For the most part when reading Lojban/Loglan you only need to pronounce three letters at a time. (This is part of the play in the name LOGical LANguage of the three letter syllable pattern in the language itself. Lojban uses the language's own symbols in its case.) Is there a benefit to Loglan or Lojban over Esperanto? Ultimately I think it's a matter of whether or not there is a benefit of Apples over Oranges: it's more a matter of your particular taste and what you want out of a conlang. They are all beautiful languages trying to do interesting things.
- DougMerritt 11y ago
  > Loglan actually predates most programming languages Indeed the Scientific American mention of Loglan was 1960 -- after the invention of Cobol, Fortran, and Lisp (and 50's crud like autocoder), but before most everything else. Probably most hear of it for the first time from its prominent mention in Heinlein's Hugo Award-winning "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", where it is the "language" used to program the strong AI that is a major character. I ran a Loglan study group in college, and later studied Lojban, before abandoning conlangs (when I discovered that the strong version of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis is misguided at best -- although conlangs can be interesting for other reasons). > Is there a benefit to Loglan or Lojban over Esperanto? I am no longer so sure that the case is any different for conlangs than for natural languages. If I ask if there's a benefit of French versus Mandarin, people will chime in with their personal favorites and rationalizations for why one is better than the other, but objectively they are both very fine languages for literature and poetry.

ilaksh 11y ago

If you are interested in Conlangs check out ithkuil.

DougMerritt 11y ago
It's been many many years since I ran in conlang circles, so I had to refresh my memory: > designed to express deeper levels of human cognition briefly yet overtly and clearly, particularly with regard to human categorization. Ithkuil is notable for its grammatical complexity and extensive phoneme inventory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithkuil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithkuil http://www.ithkuil.net/ http://www.ithkuil.net/

nanofortnight 11y ago

Lojban was inspired by an earlier version of Loglan, and has much the same goals. It also has the advantage of having a far more active community.

stephengillie 11y ago
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/191/ https://xkcd.com/191/
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Exactly. And what about sarcasm, or ambiguity? Social communications needs lots of elbow room.
  - tlholaday 11y ago
    Ambiguity and sarcasm can be accomplished using literary devices. You can find a list at literarydevices.net.
    - tzs 11y ago
      > You can find a list at literarydevices.net Under ad hominem, this example is given: 2. A classic example of ad hominem fallacy is given below: A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn’t a murderer, and so can’t be a criminal." B: "Well, you’re a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument." OK, first of all, A's argument is terrible. He's asserting that all murderers are criminals, but to support the second half of his argument he really needs "all criminals are murderers". But the issue here is B's counterargument, so I'll let A get away with that. How is this an ad hominem fallacy? B is not trying to discredit A's argument by appealing to a logically irrelevant characteristic of A. Rather, B is using A as a counterexample for A's argument. If instead B's argument was: B: "Well, C over there is a thief and criminal, so there goes your argument." that would clearly not be an ad hominem. C provides an example of a person who is both a thief and criminal, which is a class of people that A claimed could not exist. I see no logical reason that a person cannot serve as a refuting counterexample to a claim that they themselves made. If B had said: B: "Well, the jerk store called and they are running out of you, so there goes your argument." that would be an ad hominem, because B is trying to get us to not believe A's argument because of the irrelevancy that the jerk store does a brisk business in A. Another example to illustrate my point. Suppose A is a woman. A: "Women do not fart." (A then at once lets fly a fart as great as if it were a thunder-clap, and B is nearly blinded with the blast) B: "That's not true. You just farted!" Would literarydevices.net claim that this is an ad hominem fallacy?

dpflan 11y ago

Does anyone have experience with the idea of using Loglan or Lojban as the language for humans to 'talk' with AI, rather than using a natural human language? I recently watched an interview with AI expert Ben Goertzel discussing this concept, and it was intriguing.

maaku 11y ago
I read your first sentence and was about to respond with a link to Goertzel's paper ;) As far as I know, no one else has worked on this (and at this point it's mostly a brain-fart idea from Goertzel). This is a personal area of interest for me, but in a slightly different way. Modern AI and AGI research has shown that first-order predicate logic (which underlies Loglan/Lojban) is unlikely to be a complete formal framework for rational thought. I am very much interested to see what a language would look like that was instead based on, e.g., probabilistic graphical models. And then see that applied to human-machine communication.
- dpflan 11y ago
  Interesting. Can you share any more resources or thoughts on the ideas you mention? (Incompleteness of first-order predicate logic and a language based on PGMs)
  - maaku 11y ago
    No, because it's mostly a musing from me, although something I've been thinking about for a long time. I mention it mostly in the unlikely hope that someone runs with it and implements it, cause it'd be something I'd love to use but probably never have the time to make. Hrm. Complete was probably the wrong word. First order logic is complete in the mathematical sense that it can be used to represent and solve any problem, but the issue with AI / AGI is one of practicality. First order logic suffers from term explosion on any non-toy problem, leading to the need for higher order logics (of which there are many), and/or integration with other kinds of systems to manage that complexity. First order logic is also not probabilistic, and dealing well with uncertainty is a hallmark of natural language. Most AGI logic systems are not first order logic, although you can implement FOL in such systems. So better summarized my research question is basically "Practical AI systems need tools beyond what first order logic provides to represent thought. I wonder what would result from applying these extra tools to a logical conlang?" My intuition is that the right way to approach this is to ask "What would a conlang based on probabilistic graphical models look like?" The reason being that PGMs are the underlying theory for most modern approaches to concept representation and knowledge databases. Examples of PGMs are Bayes nets, Markov random fields, and restricted Boltzmann machines, aka the state of the art in modern neural networks. PGMs also underlay to a more limited degree many probabilistic concept network formulations, including the atomspace of OpenCog. So what would a PGM-based conlang look like? I'm not sure actually, but I can tell you it probably wouldn't look much like Loglan / Lojban. It'd be easy to represent any Lojban sentence in this hypothetical PGM language, using the "first order dialect," but the converse is probably not generally true.

hellbanner 11y ago

Just yesterday I was wondering how to send an array to someone (another human).. then realized that we used pointers all the time! Ala "Hey, look up the book called X on page Y" or "Go to street ABC and house 123"

capkutay 11y ago

Yes Loglan can be the official language of our libertarian Seastead Utopia where your status is determined by the aggregate of your HN and reddit karma.

dpflan 11y ago
For fun: just add a 'd' to get "Logland". Or become a citizen of Liberland and propose an official language. 1. https://liberland.org/en/about/ https://liberland.org/en/about/ 2. HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400443 3. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-making-of-a-president.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-making-of-a-p...

fernly 11y ago

For an English speaker, studying Lo[gj][lb]an is like taking a dive from C++ into APL or Haskell. There are whole new ways of representing expression. This is why they are not to be compared to Esperanto, whose syntax is deliberately familiar to speakers of European languages, while Lojban's is aggressively different. Consider "conversion" which produces the effects of "passive voice" in English, and more[1]. Inserting a particle converts mi tavla do la javas (I speak to you about Java) do se tavla mi la javas (you are-bespoken by me about Java) la javas te tavla mi do (Java is spoken-about by me to you) Or the possibly overcomplex but rather amazing tense system[2], which allows things such as: mi pu zu ba'o tavla do la javas (I long ago finished talking to you about Java) mi ba reroi do tavla la javas (I will two times talk to you about Java) [1] https://mw.lojban.org/extensions/cll/2/7/ https://mw.lojban.org/extensions/cll/2/7/ [2] https://mw.lojban.org/extensions/cll/10/1/ https://mw.lojban.org/extensions/cll/10/1/

wirrbel 11y ago

Take a look at loglan, lojban out of curiosity if you want to. If you want to spend effort and learn them, reconsider learning "normal" foreign language that comes from another language family. Even if potentially using Loglan/Lojban you might be able to phrase relationships in ways that your native language does not allow, chances are, that you are merely transpiling your native language into loglan. If you learn a foreign language, you will be confronted with material and native speakers of that language, eventually this means that you are faced to learn their concepts and perception of the world. Think about learning a language that is not from the same language family as yours, or at least try to find a language that conceptionally has differences. For all speakers of european languages (English, Romance languages, Welsh/gaelic, Slavic languages), I highly recommend learning Turkish for that matter. It is kind of a logical language in the sense that it has a strong emphasis on grammar and regularity. It is spoken by a whole bunch of Turkish expats all over the world.