If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker)   The story of constructed language Ithkuil, designed to be both maximally precise and maximally concise. Come for the fascinating discussion on linguistics, stay for the bizarre right-wing hate group adopting use of the language   (newyorker.com) divider line 159
    More: Interesting, Ithkuil, linguistics, Robert Heinlein, Caspian Sea, ambiguity, artificial languages  
•       •       •

14022 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2012 at 5:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-19 10:46:57 AM

casual disregard: Graffito: casual disregard: I think I agree with you. Except I have never witnissed Ithkuil fail :3 I would much prefer to witness the event in real-time than to pre-suppose it must be a dead idea.

What happens when two Ithkuil speakers disagree on how to translate a word or concept? Say that you (taking the example from the article) think that gawk contains an element of surprise and I think that gawk contains an element of stupidity?

I think that is a fair criticism. I suppose the idea is that Ithkuil is rigidly defined and rigidly enforced. I don't know how specifically you could prevent it from deforming or devolving. It's the sort of language which has no native speakers by default and therefore has no rules to break as a result.


I would also love to know if jokes are possible in Ithkuil. Much humor depends upon double meanings, exaggeration, or an unexpected turn of phrase - precisely the kinds of things that Ithkuil was designed to avoid.
 
2012-12-19 12:28:40 PM

ciberido: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KarmicDisaster: I'd be very surprised if the average right wing hater could learn this. I mean study it out.
 
"Right Wing" (and "conservative") are shifty terms. Just to point out something not necessarily obvious, the "nationalist" terrorist groups in what use to be the old SU are mostly out-of-work Communists who are beating the nationalistic drum to gain support.
 
So if the particular koolaid meme you're slavishly repeating is "All right wing people are drooling morons" it may not particularly apply here.

At some point the horseshoe theory comes into play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory


Ah, yes, the Horseshoe theory. I'm familiar with it. (I have a PoliSci degree.)

Are you, by chance, an atheist? If so, consider the analogy of you being placed in the middle of the religious ideological spectrum, with Christians on the one end, Muslims on the other end, and extremists of both faiths somehow "meeting" where the horseshoe ends curve towards one another.

You would probably have a problem with that construction. You would probably argue that the similarities between Christianity and Islam are, philosophically (core beliefs) and existentially (behavior), far more important than their relatively minor religious differences. For example:
- Both place faith (an unfounded belief without physical evidence) above reason.
- Both consider faith superior to reason.
- Both have a history of extreme violence against Unbelievers (of their particular faith).
- Both worship a variant of an invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, barbarian tribe desert God.

You, as an atheist, would probably think that the correct model would be a line, with all religion at one end, and atheists at the other.

OK, now stretch your mind a bit. Do NOT automatically put on the Glasses.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So it is with Fascism, Naziism, and Soviet Socialism (not communism; if you read the proceeds of the All-Union Communist Party Congresses, you will see that the Soviets themselves admitted that their system was not Communism). You can also include Socialist variants from Cuba, China, North Korea, Cambodia, etc. The philosophically (core beliefs) and existentially (behavior) similarities of Fascism, Naziism, and Socialism are far more important than the minor quibbles over their ideologies.
- Both place faith in the Leader (an unfounded belief without physical evidence) above reason.
- Both consider faith superior to reason.
- Both have a history of extreme violence against Unbelievers (of their particular faith).
- Both worship a variant of an invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, State.

Also consider the well know fact that the most extreme violence is most often between "family" members (familiarity breeds contempt?).
- Sunni -vs- Shia (everywhere in the Middle East)
- Protestant -vs- Catholic (Ireland)
- North -vs- South (American Civil War)
- Christian -vs- Muslim (Crusades, today)
- Nazis -vs- Soviets (far more brutal and costly than the battles in the west)

Finally, consider that the terms "left" and "right" are actually pretty meaningless today. I mean, they come from the farking SEATING arrangement of the French Assembly back in the 1780-90s. Link. (The article is largely nonsense; I include it just for the origin reference, and so you can see in black and white the mish-mash of ideologies that results from the false Left-Right dichotomy.)

The article is nonsense for at least a couple of reasons.

First, "In France, where the terms originated, the Left is called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order."" So the Left is progressive and the right conservative. So an old Stalinist who longs for a return of Soviet totalitarianism is described the same way (conservative) as a "Barry Goldwater" Republican (conservative)? Really? Meaningless.

Second, the article makes a distinction between "the left's "civil-libertarians"" and "the right's "economic-libertarians"". Nonsense. Civil and Economic liberty are mutually supportive, and one cannot have one without the other. One example to prove that point: Freedom of the Press, the Civil right to print an article criticizing those in power, is meaningless unless you have the Economic right to the ownership and/or use of the private property of the typewriter, copy machine, or printing press.

Third, notice the mish-mash of contradictory politics in the "progressive" and "conservative" buckets:

----"the Left includes progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians"

----"the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians"

Really?
 
2012-12-19 12:32:32 PM

casual disregard: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KarmicDisaster: I'd be very surprised if the average right wing hater could learn this. I mean study it out.

"Right Wing" (and "conservative") are shifty terms. Just to point out something not necessarily obvious, the "nationalist" terrorist groups in what use to be the old SU are mostly out-of-work Communists who are beating the nationalistic drum to gain support.

So if the particular koolaid meme you're slavishly repeating is "All right wing people are drooling morons" it may not particularly apply here.

That might be true if the nationalists in question weren't also stridently anti-communist. In this case, the almost cultish group adopting the language is pro-white, pro-Slav/Rus, anti-Jew, anti-Israel, etc. It's hard to imagine a less right-wing organization. You might well be projecting your own hopes and fears onto the other side. Have you ever considered that?


Didn't really care enough to look up their particular ideology. Most in the past have been old-line communists longing for a return to the Old Days. Left -vs- right? See my comment above to ciberido.
 
2012-12-19 12:56:20 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Are you, by chance, an atheist?

 
I am not an atheist, I do not espouse the horseshoe theory, nor do I fully agree with you.  I brought it up because it in some ways reminded me of what I understood you to be saying, and because I thought you (and others) might find it interesting.
 
What I find appealing about the horseshoe theory is not the specifics of liberals versus conservatives, but the general idea that extremism with any ideology follows a certain pattern (and is potentially dangerous).
 
2012-12-19 01:05:43 PM
Hmm, late again. I'll just leave this here.

lolpics.se
 
2012-12-19 02:41:02 PM

ciberido: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Are you, by chance, an atheist?
 
I am not an atheist, I do not espouse the horseshoe theory, nor do I fully agree with you.  I brought it up because it in some ways reminded me of what I understood you to be saying, and because I thought you (and others) might find it interesting.
 
What I find appealing about the horseshoe theory is not the specifics of liberals versus conservatives, but the general idea that extremism with any ideology follows a certain pattern (and is potentially dangerous).


Yes. Have you read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer? Link "A stevedore on the San Francisco docks in the 1940s, Eric Hoffer wrote philosophical treatises in his spare time while living in the railroad yards. The True Believer -- the first and most famous of his books -- was made into a bestseller when President Eisenhower cited it during one of the earliest television press conferences.Completely relevant and essential for understanding the world today, The True Believer is a visionary, highly provocative look into the mind of the fanatic and a penetrating study of how an individual becomes one." Liberals tend to poo-poo him, but his experiences in life gave him some fascinating insights. 

Today, too few people know of him and those insights. One of the most important, IMHO, Wikipedia pages says this about him: Link
 
2012-12-19 04:36:27 PM

lockers: So what happens when it becomes a living language and morphs into a flawed, yet serviceable language like all the rest. In theory, people using Ithkuil will change the way they use language. In practice, people will change Ithkuil as they use it. A lot of English's written oddities has to do with the great vowel migration (a political event) happening after the formalization of the written language. That messy people problem is what caused all practical languages to be less than ideal. Given that, why is this language "better" than english? Considering we have damn near universal literacy in the first world, and a majority a literate worldwide, what exactly is the benefit that is immune to the people using it problem?


I wonder if it's something that can be used by computers to communicate ... IN THE FUTURE!!!1!
 
2012-12-19 07:43:34 PM

ciberido: Don't Tongue the Reaper!: Dr.Zom: Among the Wakashan Indians of the Pacific Northwest, a grammatically correct sentence can't be formed without providing what linguists refer to as "evidentiality," inflecting the verb to indicate whether you are speaking from direct experience, inference, conjecture, or hearsay.

English need this.

Cool article, subby, thanks.

Quechua has a similar evidentiality. I know this personally, I am not speaking from hearsay :)

But does Quechua have a "hearsay particle" for evidentiality like Nepali does?


Late getting back to this, the construction is to put the suffix "shka" on the key verb and the word "nin". It more or less translates to "so they say".
 
2012-12-19 08:45:52 PM

lantawa: Sorry about those Politics incidents. I'm sort of a bright spaz-noir, such as that may be. I'm over it.

 
 
Huh. Whaddaya know. Reconciliation in the Geek Tab over a linguistics thread. Fark always amazes.
 
All righty then!
 
Displayed 9 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report