4 ms·

So, I'm not sure if it was the earlier article about this, or another documentary I saw, but I think it's been established that even as different languages have

So, I'm not sure if it was the earlier article about this, or another documentary I saw, but I think it's been established that even as different languages have different "speeds" in terms of syllables uttered, the rate of communicated meaning is roughly the same across modern languages. I wonder if that would hold up with this language as well - if it is so concise and precise, would it just mean that people take a while to speak it, and take a while to understand it after hearing it, before responding? Or is it possible that it's more Neo-in-the-matrix like where we'd immediately understand some complex idea right when it is uttered? I believe the former would be more likely but have no idea.

dkural 10y ago
I am not sure. In Turkish, for instance: bakimliliastiramadiklarimizdanmisiniz? It's a single word. It means: Are you one of those people who we tried to convert to take care of themselves better but failed to do so? The language proposed reminds me in some ways to Turkish :)
- schoen 10y ago
  I've been curious about the extent to which people commonly use some of these long theoretically possible Turkish words. I was curious about that for German, too, before learning it; my impression since then is that German compound nouns with more than three or so base nouns are rare in practice (maybe outside of a few technical contexts, like names of legislation). Germans love to give examples about a Danube steamship company captain's hat or a rhubarb-loving barbarian's bar and so on, but they probably wouldn't actually use such words spontaneously. So, how does word length work out in day-to-day use of Turkish?
  - Jun8 10y ago
    You're right, such monstrosities are quite rare in regular language. Also, technically, the "mısınız" part at the end should be written separately so even this example is two words.
  - muricula 10y ago
    Anecdotally as a second language speaker of Turkish, day to day Turkish doesn't use words that long. That's mostly just one of several very similar phrases used to point out how long and creative Turkish suffixes can get. However, many words one uses in day to day conversation have two or three suffixes tacked on. I'd say most words in a sentence have at least one suffix. Formal written Turkish you might find in a newspaper article discussing the latest political developments uses words with even more abstract suffixes. Such formal writing also uses long winded sentences which would be considered run-on in English and could occasionally be translated into a whole paragraph. It's a fascinating language!
- kmicklas 10y ago
  Counting the syllables I get something like Turkish: 16 English: 26 Given the inherent loss in efficiency in trying to accurately translate very specific phrases out of context, that doesn't seem like such a big difference. (And I'm sure you could further condense the translation maybe like "Are you one of them we failed to get to take better care of themselves?" at 18.) I think the OP's assertion is generally assumed to hold for natural languages.
JadeNB 10y ago
> I wonder if that would hold up with this language as well - if it is so concise and precise, would it just mean that people take a while to speak it, and take a while to understand it after hearing it, before responding? This sounds to me like formal scientific discourse: extremely concise and precise, but it takes a while to package one's thoughts in that form, and to unpack someone else's. That is to say, I think that your question is great, and that this possibility is probably what would happen (… or happens, I guess?).
pebers 10y ago
I would guess it's more likely that, rather than taking longer to speak or understand it, there'd be a high rate of misunderstanding due to the large phonemic inventory. I suppose the idea is that it's possible to express ideas more rapidly due to a higher entropy signal, but it seems unlikely that it's possible for listeners to hear 13 vowels + 12 diphthongs completely distinctly. I know several non-native but fluent English speakers who find it hard to follow all distinctions of English vowels (between 13-17ish, depending on dialect and including diphthongs), which is significantly fewer than Ithkuil proposes. That assumes that anyone actually could come sufficiently close to speaking it, of course; it seems similarly unlikely that speakers could express so many distinct phonemes sufficiently clearly when the total complexity is so far beyond current languages.
- tragomaskhalos 10y ago
  Natural languages that have a large consonant inventory tend to have a simple set of vowels, and vice-versa. So it seems that humans can only handle phonetic complexity along one axis yes.

dkural 10y ago

I am not sure. In Turkish, for instance: bakimliliastiramadiklarimizdanmisiniz? It's a single word. It means: Are you one of those people who we tried to convert to take care of themselves better but failed to do so? The language proposed reminds me in some ways to Turkish :)

schoen 10y ago
I've been curious about the extent to which people commonly use some of these long theoretically possible Turkish words. I was curious about that for German, too, before learning it; my impression since then is that German compound nouns with more than three or so base nouns are rare in practice (maybe outside of a few technical contexts, like names of legislation). Germans love to give examples about a Danube steamship company captain's hat or a rhubarb-loving barbarian's bar and so on, but they probably wouldn't actually use such words spontaneously. So, how does word length work out in day-to-day use of Turkish?
- Jun8 10y ago
  You're right, such monstrosities are quite rare in regular language. Also, technically, the "mısınız" part at the end should be written separately so even this example is two words.
- muricula 10y ago
  Anecdotally as a second language speaker of Turkish, day to day Turkish doesn't use words that long. That's mostly just one of several very similar phrases used to point out how long and creative Turkish suffixes can get. However, many words one uses in day to day conversation have two or three suffixes tacked on. I'd say most words in a sentence have at least one suffix. Formal written Turkish you might find in a newspaper article discussing the latest political developments uses words with even more abstract suffixes. Such formal writing also uses long winded sentences which would be considered run-on in English and could occasionally be translated into a whole paragraph. It's a fascinating language!
kmicklas 10y ago
Counting the syllables I get something like Turkish: 16 English: 26 Given the inherent loss in efficiency in trying to accurately translate very specific phrases out of context, that doesn't seem like such a big difference. (And I'm sure you could further condense the translation maybe like "Are you one of them we failed to get to take better care of themselves?" at 18.) I think the OP's assertion is generally assumed to hold for natural languages.

JadeNB 10y ago

> I wonder if that would hold up with this language as well - if it is so concise and precise, would it just mean that people take a while to speak it, and take a while to understand it after hearing it, before responding? This sounds to me like formal scientific discourse: extremely concise and precise, but it takes a while to package one's thoughts in that form, and to unpack someone else's. That is to say, I think that your question is great, and that this possibility is probably what would happen (… or happens, I guess?).

pebers 10y ago

I would guess it's more likely that, rather than taking longer to speak or understand it, there'd be a high rate of misunderstanding due to the large phonemic inventory. I suppose the idea is that it's possible to express ideas more rapidly due to a higher entropy signal, but it seems unlikely that it's possible for listeners to hear 13 vowels + 12 diphthongs completely distinctly. I know several non-native but fluent English speakers who find it hard to follow all distinctions of English vowels (between 13-17ish, depending on dialect and including diphthongs), which is significantly fewer than Ithkuil proposes. That assumes that anyone actually could come sufficiently close to speaking it, of course; it seems similarly unlikely that speakers could express so many distinct phonemes sufficiently clearly when the total complexity is so far beyond current languages.

tragomaskhalos 10y ago
Natural languages that have a large consonant inventory tend to have a simple set of vowels, and vice-versa. So it seems that humans can only handle phonetic complexity along one axis yes.