The only idea that I have that I know would work out would be to prefix "words" with \, |, and/or / to show tense, so \(something) would be past-tense, |(something) would be present, and /(something) would be future, and they could be combined such as /\(something) as the english equivalent of I will have.
And G-Flex, I meant time-tense, not the total collection. Unless there is scientific breakthrough in time travel, there will only ever be past, present, and future.
Covered.
That would use /\ as a prefix (future-past, the past of the future).
So, "I /\date Jhon for 3 years".
Much shorter, and a computer would have less of a problem working it out as a side effect.
English?
It shouldn't result in a modified english.
Wrong.
I know a bit of french.
And, a massive ammount of C, java, C++, basic, and others...
Wrong.
I know a bit of french.
And, a massive ammount of C, java, C++, basic, and others...
I'm sorry, but "a bit of French" (which is fairly similar to English anyway, in the big picture) isn't going to help a hell of a lot, nor are programming languages.
The best thing I can think of for a internet is Esperanto. Think Latin with vaguely Italian pronunciation, with all of the complexity explicitly removed. You can learn the grammar, if not the dictionary in a couple of weeks of study.
On the flip side, there's Lojban. You will never say anything that could ever be ambiguous in any way. Your meaning will always be precisely conveyed by the words you use and the order in which they are organized, with a complex system of back-up articles to make things as clear as possible. Suffice it to say that most people don't bother trying.
There's still a problem there.
Idiomatic phrases like "Time flies" occur for a very good reason. After all, it's not as if English couldn't already represent the concept, so why would a technically-ambiguous (although not in practice) term like that arise?
It's because idiomatic, metaphorical language like that is good for understanding what someone means by something. "Flies" is associated with a certain physical process that doesn't apply to time in a technical sense, but is applied analogously in order to describe a perception of time moving fast... hell, I'm having trouble even describing what "time flies" means, because it's so easily understood idiomatically. Weird little quirky constructs like that, where the meaning of one thing is applied by analogy and association to something completely different, are important to language. You could get rid of it, but people would end up doing it again anyway eventually, or else it never would happen in the first place. The connotations and images people conjur up when they use language are just as important as the technical definitions of the words themselves.
There's still a problem there.
Idiomatic phrases like "Time flies" occur for a very good reason. After all, it's not as if English couldn't already represent the concept, so why would a technically-ambiguous (although not in practice) term like that arise?
It's because idiomatic, metaphorical language like that is good for understanding what someone means by something. "Flies" is associated with a certain physical process that doesn't apply to time in a technical sense, but is applied analogously in order to describe a perception of time moving fast... hell, I'm having trouble even describing what "time flies" means, because it's so easily understood idiomatically. Weird little quirky constructs like that, where the meaning of one thing is applied by analogy and association to something completely different, are important to language. You could get rid of it, but people would end up doing it again anyway eventually, or else it never would happen in the first place. The connotations and images people conjur up when they use language are just as important as the technical definitions of the words themselves.
Aye. It's like that old logical fallacy.
"God is love. Love is blind. Therefore God is blind."
Following if A = B and B = C, A = C.
But that's silly. The "B" term here refers to two different kinds of love in two different statements. The thing is, if spoken language weren't full of ambiguities, then this kind of fallacy would be impossible.
But I like English just the way it is.
Except "Lovers are blind" would work just as well and make sense.
By the way, if I remember correctly something being metaphorical has a suffix or prefix or such in Loyban, so there would in effect be one word for literal medical blindness, and one for metaphorical blindness to waht is going on.
Except "Lovers are blind" would work just as well and make sense.
By the way, if I remember correctly something being metaphorical has a suffix or prefix or such in Loyban, so there would in effect be one word for literal medical blindness, and one for metaphorical blindness to waht is going on.
Yeah, but Lojban precludes idiomatic language (which, I'm pretty sure, is what it's for in the first place). Anyway, this is discussing a new languuge for the Internet. Would unambiguity be a good thing? What about jokes, poetry, and stories?
Kantas <-Present Tense "is Singing"
Kantis <-Past Tense "has Sang"
Kantos <-Future Tense "Will Sing"
Kanti <-Infinitve "To Sing"
Kantu <-Jussive "Sing!"(command)
Kantus <-Conditional (hypothetical state of singing) Eg, "I would have (hypothetically) sang yesterday if you told me to"
Of course, the actual trade language of the world is English, which may not be particularly easy to learn or free of ambiguity, but does have the advantage of being in actual use by a large proportion of the industrialized world.