Vreleksá Forum Index Vreleksá
The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Planning to create a human language similar to a computer 1

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleksá Forum Index -> Random Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kyonides



Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:40 pm    Post subject: Planning to create a human language similar to a computer 1 Reply with quote

Well, actually I plan to make it look more like an Object-Oriented Programming Language (OOPL). The only thing I've been worried about would be the tenses. Would people care if this written language has a concise system to denote how long an event happened or would it be more relative?

Here's an example of how I'd plan to make it come true.

In Ruby (an OOPL) you'd need to make an object do something like this...

Animal.walk or Animal.move_up or Animal.eat or Animal.size or Animal.age

OK, if the Animal class was predefined, then it'd either walk or move or eat or let us measure its height or width or we'd get a record with its current age on it. What if I want to tell you it's not eating right now but just a while ago?

Animal.eat.ago or Animal.eat.before

Here it is as a question...

Animal.eat.before? or just Animal.eat?

Another thing that might be possible to resemble in a fake human language would be things like these...

I.go(there) if Time.now.free

I.stay(here) while Time.rain.still

Even so these conlang seems to be quite weird for a written language system. Do you think this would make any sense for anyone (either real-life people or conpeople)? Or it would only last a few years before people start complaining just like Germans complain about the Orthographic Reform or die Neue Rechtschreibung?
_________________
Seos nivo adgene Kizne tikelke

The Internet might be either your best friend or your worst enemy. It just depends on whether or not she has a bad hair day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tolkien_Freak



Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 1231
Location: in front of my computer. always.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It actually looks rather realistic, for a polysynthetic language. I'm sure that there are not only languages that consider 'I.go(there) if Time.now.free' perfectly natural, there are ones that would use even fewer separate words.

As for tenses, you can pretty much define any tense you want. Perhaps to the degree that instead of having grammatical tense in this language, you have a specific class of adverbs that are used for the same purpose (and could easily be incorporated into the verb itself).

As for it being written - it wouldn't make sense at all if this were to be a writing system for a language like (say) English that works completely differently, but if you format the spoken language this way you'll be just fine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aert



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 354

PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it could work quite well/easily for simple sentences and etc, but I'd think you'd need to approach it from a more linguistic point of view instead of a conversational/phrasal one.

For example the problem of questions: I don't think a computer would understand the simple act of adding a character (?) to the sentence to indicate the speaker/etc is asking a question (unless it is previously defined in a sort of grammar file or parser/decoder. Instead I'd use [+QUESTION] and have similar categories of [+]/[-]DESCRIPTION to both limit the basic vocabulary necessary and increase the possible descriptions and range of expression.

1[+SINGULAR]-MOVE_TO[+FUTURE-ADJECTIVE,-ADVERB]-LOCATION_specified_as_"home" CONDITIONAL-{TIME_specified_as_"15:00"[+COPULA]}
I will go home if it's 3:00.

So I imagine all adjectives and adjverbs would be [+]/[-]DESCRIPTION, while all NOUNS would have to be specified (either earlier, as in <SPECIFY> or <SPECIFY>)

With this type of modification/description, you could actually use words in ways that can only be indicated phrasally in English, eg:

3[+SINGULAR+ANIMATE-GENDER]-MOVE[+PAST][+NOUN_BUTTERFLY_COMPARATIVE=ADJECTIVE]_[+STIMULANT.INSTRUMENTAL]_[+ACROSS_OMNI]-SCREEN
'it moved like a stimulated butterfly does across all of the screen'
"It flitted all over the screen like a butterfly on stimulants"

I hope that helped a bit, and good luck!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zearen Wover



Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:20 pm    Post subject: This is right up my alley Reply with quote

Questions are already built into programming languages. Every time one types something like 3 == 4, that's a predicate. It's a simple yes or no question. A more interestingly, who would you ask, “You throw what?”. The easiest solution would to invent a question like Lojban's ma. So the phrase you.throw(what) is inherently a question. Unfortunately, this approach is inherently limited, for how would one ask, “What big thing throws you?” This is because computer languages struggle with adjectives. All computer languages are designed to handle only nouns. When you're programming a computer, you always have a thing/data/noun to manipulate. Even if you're looking for big things, you have a list to look through. You may be able to simulate this with an everything variable, and then filtering out what you don't want. So “Big things” might look like everything.filter {|x| x.big?}. But then how do we say, “a big thing”. We could create a method like .one_of or .a and say everything.filter {|x| x.big?}.a, but this would quickly become unwieldy. It also doesn't help us form a question.

Instead, we could use assertions. In order to do this, we still need an object though. We can create a generic object, thing, but it still doesn't tell us much unless we have a base class from which everything inherits. But then how do we know this thing has a big attribute? How can an atom be big? We could use classes like objects, so we could assert myBall.big = True or some syntax like that. But this limits us to much. Why not use an interface system? We could define Thing as an interface and use <> to indicate what one passes to its constructor. So then a big thing would be Thing<big>. We could even short cut it and say descriptors are always predicates and are true unless prefixed with !. Then we have Thing<big>. The constructor syntax is useful, and we can use it else where. For example, “A big thing throw the small, not round ball” might be Thing<big>.throw(Ball<small>)

Personally, I'd like to set all these different objects apart. Methods are easy to recognize, alway being prefixed by a dot. Classes are capitalized and instances are not. So following the model of ruby, descriptors could be prefixed by : like in hashes. With this, we could do away with ugly myBall.big = True assertions and Thing<big> constructors replacing them with myBall :big and Thing :big. Since these descriptors could be used with anything, they provide a solution to the “What big thing throws you?” problem: what :big.throw(you). This could also help with the tense, and I can think of a really flexible way to do it, but it would be too close to how Exyan does it.

I'm not sure if any of that helped, I was just throwing ideas out there.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kyonides



Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, if I follow Ruby's example, then it'd definitely fail if I used this...

what :big.throw(you)

Since it'd be a symbol that can't be modified, it just retains a single value until it's disposed and would make communication between anyone a mess.

what big: throw(You) or what :big => throw(You)

That would be acceptable in theory, but "what" would become a problem later on unless we define it as a pseudo variable and reserve it as a keyword...
_________________
Seos nivo adgene Kizne tikelke

The Internet might be either your best friend or your worst enemy. It just depends on whether or not she has a bad hair day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Vreleksá Forum Index -> Random Chat
All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Theme ACID © 2003 par HEDONISM Web Hosting Directory


Start Your Own Video Sharing Site

Free Web Hosting | Free Forum Hosting | FlashWebHost.com | Image Hosting | Photo Gallery | FreeMarriage.com

Powered by PhpBBweb.com, setup your forum now!
For Support, visit Forums.BizHat.com