Live data from Hacker News

Lojban: Constructed language to eliminate ambiguity from communication

mw.lojban.org

91–100 of 145 posts

Re: Lojban: Constructed language to eliminate ambiguity from communication

#91
post #75
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, classic HN Saturday morning - finding myself dreaming up Hungarian notation in English to disambiguate grammatical types nTime vFlies avLike an nArrow, nFruit vFlies avLike a nBanana It's ugly but if we all adhere to this convention and haze our juniors, we'll eliminate most our problems

As someone who speaks Hungarian, but never seen Hungarian notation outside the context of programming, I'm suddenly realizing that Hungarian notation is probably named after how the Hungarian language itself works. Words in Hungarian have specific endings that change their "grammatical type" (I forget the grammatical term for that... part of speech?) Some examples: 1. "-ás/-és": Transforms a verb into a noun that den…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation

> The original Hungarian notation was invented by Charles Simonyi, a programmer who worked at Xerox PARC circa 1972–1981, and who later became Chief Architect at Microsoft. The name of the notation is a reference to Simonyi's nation of origin, and also, according to Andy Hertzfeld, because it made programs "look like they were written in some inscrutable foreign language". Hungarian people's names are "reversed" compared to most other European names; the family name precedes the given name. For example, the anglicized name "Charles Simonyi" in Hungarian was originally "Simonyi Károly". In the same way, the type name precedes the "given name" in Hungarian notation. The similar Smalltalk "type last" naming style (e.g. aPoint and lastPoint) was common at Xerox PARC during Simonyi's tenure there.

> Simonyi's paper on the notation referred to prefixes used to indicate the "type" of information being stored. His proposal was largely concerned with decorating identifier names based upon the semantic information of what they store (in other words, the variable's purpose). Simonyi's notation came to be called Apps Hungarian, since the convention was used in the applications division of Microsoft. Systems Hungarian developed later in the Microsoft Windows development team. Apps Hungarian is not entirely distinct from what became known as Systems Hungarian, as some of Simonyi's suggested prefixes contain little or no semantic information (see below for examples).

---

Simonyi's native language may have had some impact on how he wrote code, but it was not "human language -> write code like Hungarian -> Hungarian notation".

https://www.technologyreview.com/2007/01/01/227178/anything-...

> The resulting code was dense and hard to read. ­Simonyi’s system came to be known as Hungarian notation, both in homage to its creator’s birthplace and because it made programs “look like they were written in some inscrutable foreign language,” according to programming pioneer Andy Hertzfeld. Hungarian is widely cursed by its detractors. Canadian Java expert Roedy Green has jokingly called it “the tactical nuclear weapon of source code obfuscation techniques.” Mozilla programmer Alec Flett wrote this parody:

    prepBut nI vrbLike adjHungarian! qWhat’s artThe adjBig nProblem?

Re: Lojban: Constructed language to eliminate ambiguity from communication

#92
post #46

Why is it so hard, and why hasn't anybody done it before? The whole problem seems trivial to me. You need a language where - first you need your words to have only one meaning. You can even use an existing vocabulary, like English, or Esperanto. - then you need to be express math/logic/structured programming. That's it, now you have a language without any ambiguity. If there are some ambiguity in the objects/concepts…

The difficulty in languages is not in having good features, but getting people to use the language at all. Existing human languages mostly solved the adoption problem because you want to speak the same language as the people around you. I don't think Lojban has reached that critical mass yet.

Programming languages have other ways of increasing adoption, such as offering libraries that are tightly coupled with that language. If there are interesting literature that are only available exclusively in Lojban, that might have been a good motivation to learn the language, assuming that they can compete with the heaps of existing work written in languages we already knew.

Re: Lojban: Constructed language to eliminate ambiguity from communication

#93
post #79

I'm one of the few conversation Lojban speakers, and after years extended study, I've found the language does not meet expectations. When you start deeply exploring the semantics, many constructs are only half defined or nonsensical. Further, the self appointed DFL tries to preserve the language in an unusable state and had alienated most of the proficient speakers. There are other logical languages out there. Most o…

> I'm one of the few conversation Lojban speakers, and after years extended study

Honest question...why?

Re: Lojban: Constructed language to eliminate ambiguity from communication

#94
post #9

I vaguely remember a TNG* episode in which humans encounter an alien race that found our language too ...inaccurate, and spent a lot of time going over each word and sentence, to precisely define its meaning. * Was it TNG or am I dreaming? *edit: Thank you everyone, but it wasn't "Darmok". The humans and the aliens were working, for a long time, on a treaty of sorts because the human language was so confusing and amb…

Was it the episode in which the Federation needed more time to evacuate a colony and the other party refused because the treaty left no room to interpret it like that?

If I remember correctly, the crew found a loophole using a rule that allowed them to ask for arbitration - they asked for an arbiter from a species that was currently in rather long hibernation.

Re: Lojban: Constructed language to eliminate ambiguity from communication

#96
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it so hard, and why hasn't anybody done it before? The whole problem seems trivial to me. You need a language where > - first you need your words to have only one meaning There's your answer. There is no such language, there are no such words. It's questionable if it's even possible - to me, it sounds like a category error. "Words" aren't keys in a hash table, and "meaning" isn't a discrete thing. > now you…

I still don't get it. In the linguistic part the only problem is to make to word->object mapping unambiguous. And it is trivial problem. If the world is fuzzy (i don't think so) then is not a problem in linguistics. Yet linguists seem to aim for a language that eliminates ambiguity (see TFA). Where am I wrong?

The bear... no, not that bear, the other bear--yes, I know it's a dead bear... what, you call that a corpse and not a bear? Okay, the new corpse of a former bear, the one that is right over there...

When does a bear stop (or start) being a bear? The 'bear goo' quickly boils down to "what you believe in" and that (surprise!) people have different views, even if we restrict "bear" to only living individuals of the family Ursidae--is it a bear from the time of conception, or even before that, or maybe only at or some time after birth, or always, or never?

Of course you could be more specific--pa vizyci'ojvemrojvesofyjvericparcribe, for example--but now it takes forever to say anything, and you'll lose some of the audience--"the magistrates however replied that they had forgotten the things which had been spoken at the beginning"--and you can probably still find someone for whom the "nearby young and dead and soviet and tree-climbing bear" is still a bit too fuzzy, or anyways there will be people who will disagree with (or ignore) whatever arbitrary definition of bear you've cooked up. Maybe there are two such bears, or they'll quibble that a corpse is clearly not a bear, or they'll happily modify your oh-so-precise definition to mean something else, if you know what I mean, nudge nudge wink wink say no more because The Algorithm plusgoods discussions about bears, and so they use 'bear' to talk about something else while still collecting all those sweet, sweet plusgoods.

Also, lojban does not eliminate ambiguity, zo'e co'e be do'e zu'i, but we're za'o into nunribypevykreborvi'u. A shaved bear would be less fuzzy?

Re: Lojban: Constructed language to eliminate ambiguity from communication

#97
post #79

I'm one of the few conversation Lojban speakers, and after years extended study, I've found the language does not meet expectations. When you start deeply exploring the semantics, many constructs are only half defined or nonsensical. Further, the self appointed DFL tries to preserve the language in an unusable state and had alienated most of the proficient speakers. There are other logical languages out there. Most o…

Interesting; according to https://toaq.net/refgram/phonology/>: Toaq is a tonal language featuring both syntactic tone and lexical tone.

That makes it a hard-pass from me

Re: Lojban: Constructed language to eliminate ambiguity from communication

#98
post #14
post #3

I like this point very much: "You can be as vague or detailed as you like when speaking lojban. For example, specifying tense (past, present or future) or number (singular or plural) is optional when they're clear from context.". LMBTQ movement has came into my mind immediately. I think they would have more success by introducing a new, 'don't care about your sex' pronoun to the language instead of adding a third one…

They/them already exists and have centuries of use for that use-case. The people objecting to that are just as likely to object to an entirely new one. There also are already multiple "neopronouns" [1], and they are frequently ridiculed by those taking issue with "unexpected" (to them) pronoun use). This is also not a new debate, with variants (other than singular they) being in use in limited contexts since the late…

> They/them already exists and have centuries of use for that use-case.

This is just gaslighting. People use "they" when they talk in the abstract. No one said sentences like "This is Tom. They is happy." until a few years ago.

Re: Lojban: Constructed language to eliminate ambiguity from communication

#100

How can they be sure it’s unambiguous? Ambiguity of a context-free grammar is undecidable.

Ambiguity of a context-free Grammer is undecidable means there are some context free grammers where it is impossible to determine if they are ambiguous or not.

There are context free grammers that we can prove are unambiguous. As an example "A = xAy | ε" is unambiguous. Lojban is one of the examples of grammers we are able to prove is unambiguous.

Post reply on HN