4 ms·

Thank you for a civil, intelligent conversation. I had never thought about the "asymmetry" of putting control codes with the character codes in ASCII--it does

by stew-j 4y ago

Thank you for a civil, intelligent conversation. I had never thought about the "asymmetry" of putting control codes with the character codes in ASCII--it does seem illogical now that you point it out. :) Languages like Ido aren't completely "artificial", and I certainly think Couturat didn't fail in some sense--my irrational issue with Ido, despite its numerous strengths, is that words with the same part of speech end in the same letter(s), making it monotonous. But as my wife pointed out, that regularity makes it easier for computers to parse.

CRConrad 4y ago
> my irrational issue with Ido, despite its numerous strengths, is that words with the same part of speech end in the same letter(s), making it monotonous. But as my wife pointed out, that regularity makes it easier for computers to parse. For people too. And isn't that exactly how many natural languages work? Verbs -- someone doeS something -- all end with an 's'[1] in English: He/she/it writes, reads, encodes, builds, blathers, creates, excels, triumphs, loses, sucks... ___ [1]: Admittedly only in the present tense third-person singular, but that's something. Arguably, more of that would make the language easier to parse and learn.
verisimilitudes 4y ago
It's no issue. > I had never thought about the "asymmetry" of putting control codes with the character codes in ASCII--it does seem illogical now that you point it out. Yes, this is why I call them insidious. The issue with constructed languages is that they simply don't have the beauty of something such as Latin, and never can, due to their very nature. Anyway, feel free to send me an e-mail at some point, if we're to continue our discussion at some later time.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]