3 ms·

Oh damn! I've been theorizing to my friends about a language like this. Assuming that linguistic relativity[1] holds true, this would be super cool to learn, an

Oh damn! I've been theorizing to my friends about a language like this. Assuming that linguistic relativity[1] holds true, this would be super cool to learn, and potentially highly effective as a form of communication. The author goes into this a bit in the FAQ[2] Probably super hard to learn (if not effectively impossible)... Is there any "native level" speakers of Ithkuil? Seems unlikely, since even the author hasn't learned it fully. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity [2] http://www.ithkuil.net/faqs.html http://www.ithkuil.net/faqs.html under "Some people have claimed that using Ithkuil, a person would be able to think five times faster. Do you believe this?"

Retra 7y ago
As far as I understand it, the general scientific consensus is that linguistic relativity does not hold true. More anecdotally, I don't often find myself constructing sentences before having an intuitive (non-linguistic) understanding of what I am trying to express, and the process of putting ideas into words doesn't feel like it would be advantaged by high information density, but rather that the majority of filler-words are useful for smoothing out the process and providing information at a more controlled pace, which can be useful for things like adding emphasis to particular phrases and concepts.
- Isomorpheus 7y ago
  From what I've seen, there is evidence for the weak linguistic relativity hypothesis. Is that wrong?
  - Retra 7y ago
    Not per se, but that would allow for any inefficiencies to be moved around, which is not contrary to what I'm arguing. It's quite a bold claim to say that people will think faster or more efficiently in general, but not as bold to say they will think faster or more efficiently about some things. You might be able to make a language more efficient for technical communication while making it less efficient for poetic communication, but I don't believe you can make a language more efficient at everything people need to communicate.

Retra 7y ago

As far as I understand it, the general scientific consensus is that linguistic relativity does not hold true. More anecdotally, I don't often find myself constructing sentences before having an intuitive (non-linguistic) understanding of what I am trying to express, and the process of putting ideas into words doesn't feel like it would be advantaged by high information density, but rather that the majority of filler-words are useful for smoothing out the process and providing information at a more controlled pace, which can be useful for things like adding emphasis to particular phrases and concepts.

Isomorpheus 7y ago
From what I've seen, there is evidence for the weak linguistic relativity hypothesis. Is that wrong?
- Retra 7y ago
  Not per se, but that would allow for any inefficiencies to be moved around, which is not contrary to what I'm arguing. It's quite a bold claim to say that people will think faster or more efficiently in general, but not as bold to say they will think faster or more efficiently about some things. You might be able to make a language more efficient for technical communication while making it less efficient for poetic communication, but I don't believe you can make a language more efficient at everything people need to communicate.