3 ms·

Esperanto failed because it is a mix a multiple languages. It's a fully political language, hence why it went nowhere. >It is an illusion to think of AI as we

by loopies 15d ago

Esperanto failed because it is a mix a multiple languages. It's a fully political language, hence why it went nowhere. >It is an illusion to think of AI as we know them today as being without bias and without ideology. That doesn't mean we cannot strive for no bias. >Furthermore, the English language's place as the de-facto international language of the western world is a matter of both historical relevance (the influence of the late British Empire) and convenience. That is still not a good argument. It explains the current state of things. It doesn't say it's the best we can do, collectively. >Esperanto is easy to learn and easy to speak, and yet it is neither historically relevant nor convenient to learn and use, and as such is relegated, like most other conlangs, to relative obscurity and niche uses. It's meh. It's the jack of all trades really. It's not congruent. It's a literal mix. > I would recommend starting with Saussure's lectures, and then studying some of Noam Chomsky's early work, and from there the world is your oyster. I will start studying them, thank you for your recommendations.

bored-at-work 13d ago
> It's meh. It's the jack of all trades really. It's not congruent. It's a literal mix. That's the fun part, all languages are a mix of other languages that came before them. English borrows heavily from French, which borrows heavily from Latin, which was partially inspired by Greek which... This isn't a problem, necessarily. It's just how language works and evolves, and while it can lead to some ambiguity and confusion, it can also be a doorway to learning (if you already know french, the many english words that are based on french will be easier for you to grasp, giving you a foothold to work off of) I find it interesting that you speak of "the best we can do" or that a constructed language could be "better" than natural languages. By what metrics would you measure a language as being better than any other? In other words, when you envision the "best language", what does it look like? What would it accomplish that natural languages can't? (in case my tone isn't clear, I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, not trying to be combative or anything like that, look forward to hearing back from you)

by loopies 15d ago

bored-at-work 13d ago

> It's meh. It's the jack of all trades really. It's not congruent. It's a literal mix. That's the fun part, all languages are a mix of other languages that came before them. English borrows heavily from French, which borrows heavily from Latin, which was partially inspired by Greek which... This isn't a problem, necessarily. It's just how language works and evolves, and while it can lead to some ambiguity and confusion, it can also be a doorway to learning (if you already know french, the many english words that are based on french will be easier for you to grasp, giving you a foothold to work off of) I find it interesting that you speak of "the best we can do" or that a constructed language could be "better" than natural languages. By what metrics would you measure a language as being better than any other? In other words, when you envision the "best language", what does it look like? What would it accomplish that natural languages can't? (in case my tone isn't clear, I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, not trying to be combative or anything like that, look forward to hearing back from you)