Perfecting Language

[SagaLore]

Ever since middle school, I've always had a fascination with inventing new languages and new alphabets. Later in high school, I started looking into the number bases and machine language, etc.

English has become the global language for business. America is still hooked on old english measurements. All math is base 10... but can't we do better?

I envision running a cultural "experiment". Take a hundred volunteers of the brightest people amongst all races (50 male, 50 female). Train them hard in a new language and math, which their children will learn natively. By the 2nd generation, see how well these people are at science and engineering. Their home would have to be some isolated place with all the resources they need. Maybe it can even be an arcology or biodome.

So what is the new language and math? I envision everything being base 16. I've been able to create a full alphabet using 16 characters. There are also 16 numbers. The language would very simplistic in that the words are formed to sound exactly as they look - no special rules. There would also have to be a new lexicon, probably latin derived, so the meaning of the word is directly related to the root and compounds of the words. It would also have to flow smoothly to make speech itself very poetic - perhaps iambic pentameter.

 

[CycloWizard]

Any alphabet or numerical system you create must necessarily have an equivalent to the current English alphabet or decimal numerical system. It's easy enough to convert from binary to decimal and vice versa, and there is already a hexidecimal number system (though we'd need to switch from Arabic numerals to something else).

I guess the point I'm making is that this doesn't really represent any kind of a fundamental shift that would make me anticipate a paradigm shift. I don't really see how this would facilitate math/science learning.

 

[SagaLore]

I guess I didn't properly explain the purpose of base 16...

As you already know, the simplest math is binary - 0 or 1, off or on. Hexadecimal is a natural progression of this, acting as a condensed representation of 16 bits. At this point we form a universal electronic language.

My theory is that our base 10 way of thinking makes it harder to naturally relate to machine language. We've developed complicated fourth level languages to cope with it. In order to deal with very large numbers, we've come up with Floating Point, which gets skewed in decimal format and becomes more inaccurate as output is reused.

If we can perceive the world in groups of 16, rather than groups of 10, I think that our natural understanding of computer processing would allow much larger progression in technology. Our subconcious would be able to better break down problems and solutions in true/false, yes/no logic.

The reason I picked 16 over 8, is because it can be broken down a few times before a fraction occurs, and its a square of a prime. The same premise why the greeks used based 12.

16 / 2 = 8
16 / 4 = 4
16 / 8 = 2

compared to,

10 / 2 = 5
10 / 5 = 2

 

[stardrek]

Your ideas are interesting and have already been done to some degree. When I was a child I learned what was called New Math. I learned in base 8, as opposed to base 10. It has made life as a computer user/worker easy but otherwise was a waste. I had to relearn math in a base 10 scale for middle and highschool but did give me a degree of outside thinking when it came to college, where I did alot of programming. But base 10 works and is very accepted. I wouldn't want others to have to go through what I did.

Edit: spelling

 

[interchange]

The only reason we use base 10 is because we have 10 fingers...

That being said, it's very unreasonable to expect that it will ever change.

If we did do it, we'd have to have completely different characters for each number. That way people wouldn't confuse which base something is in.

For example:

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary, and those that don't.

 

[Matthias99]

If we can perceive the world in groups of 16, rather than groups of 10, I think that our natural understanding of computer processing would allow much larger progression in technology. Our subconcious would be able to better break down problems and solutions in true/false, yes/no logic.

I think a lot of people are basically going to disagree with this.

My theory is that our base 10 way of thinking makes it harder to naturally relate to machine language. We've developed complicated fourth level languages to cope with it.

And if you teach people to 'think in hex', they'll be able to program in machine code? I don't really think so.

In order to deal with very large numbers, we've come up with Floating Point, which gets skewed in decimal format and becomes more inaccurate as output is reused.

What exactly does the numerical bases we use have to do with fixed/floating point numbers? You're describing the same points on the real number line no matter what symbol you attach to them, and the computers store them all in binary anyway...

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
What exactly does the numerical bases we use have to do with fixed/floating point numbers? You're describing the same points on the real number line no matter what symbol you attach to them, and the computers store them all in binary anyway...

Which translates naturally into hexadecimal.

 

[Witling]

First, we're going to tie the number system and the alphabet together so we can better relate to machines? I'd rather the machine learned to relate to me. Second, your scheme seems to ignore the fact that languages are not stable. Every language we know of shifts. It's no a accident that the verb "to be" is irregular in most European languages -- maybe all European languages for all I know. People like to take shortcuts and use constructions that flow more easily.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Matthias99
What exactly does the numerical bases we use have to do with fixed/floating point numbers? You're describing the same points on the real number line no matter what symbol you attach to them, and the computers store them all in binary anyway...

Which translates naturally into hexadecimal.

...but has nothing to do with whether or not you need floating point numbers or their accuracy/inaccuracy (which is due to having a fixed number of bits to describe an uncountably infinite number of real numbers, not some innate property of base-10 numbers).

 

[Bassyhead]

I say stick with the languages we have now. Perfect is not always better. Some of the most beautiful things are what they are because of imperfections and differences. How would your language affect culture and sociology? What about music and poetry? I also don't see any gain in using a different numbering system for math, numbers are numbers no matter what base is being used.

 

[Born2bwire]

I'm leaning towards Matthias99 on this. I fail to see how a base 16 counting system would benefit in anyway when working with computers. The binary nature of computers is all but transparent to people because we can put the user interface in any base we want. It's only with machine code, microinstructions, and assembly that I can think that you would actively use the binary nature of the computer. But even then boolean logic and the binary number system are very easy to learn and implement. By the time any computer or electrical engineer has finished their sophomore year they should be completely at ease when seeing binary, hexadecimal or decimal. I just can't see how making hexadecimal the standard counting system would benefit.

 

[everman]

Interesting thought, however what happens when computers change to quantum computers and beyond? You may end up with base 16 becomming obsolete and the humans are now obsolete, hehe.

 

[SagaLore]

I was recreating the alphabet I came up with, and I realized it wasn't 16 symbols but rather 32. It is based on this:

a a e e i i o o u u oo

b k d f g h j l m n p r s t v w y z ch sh th

I don't have the symbols for it yet. But I would think "c" would sound like "ch".

 

[JJ650]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
I was recreating the alphabet I came up with, and I realized it wasn't 16 symbols but rather 32. It is based on this:

a a e e i i o o u u oo

b k d f g h j l m n p r s t v w y z ch sh th

I don't have the symbols for it yet. But I would think "c" would sound like "ch".

Kinda like Cyrillic?

 

[Atheus]

I dunno about the language thing, the japanese (for example) have a completely different type of language, but it doesn't make them any better of worse than the english (for example) at any particular thing.

I'm even more skeptical about the hexidecimal idea. As a comp sci graduate I can already translate between number bases in my head and I don't find it that useful. Math has little to do with the base you are working in, they're just an abstraction for ease of data storage.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I dunno about the language thing, the japanese (for example) have a completely different type of language, but it doesn't make them any better of worse than the english (for example) at any particular thing.

I would have to disagree. Their spoken and written language have a great impact on their way of thinking. It has a superstitious quality to it. They are much better at visualizing complex geometries and coming up with such geometric solutions that the rest of us scratch our head at. The art of origami is a good example of this.

I'm even more skeptical about the hexidecimal idea. As a comp sci graduate I can already translate between number bases in my head and I don't find it that useful. Math has little to do with the base you are working in, they're just an abstraction for ease of data storage.

Again I would have to disagree. The greeks/sumerians were really pushing base 12/60, because it was easier to divide and multiply into. Look at the calendar, time (60 seconds/minutes, 12 hours), circles (360 degrees) which was inherited from their cultures. We even have 12 inches in a foot carried over.

Let's setup the numerical system just like hex:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F

So let's say we want to device a new time system. Instead of the 24 hours, 60 minutes 60 seconds, we want to follow the more practical metric system.

Base 10 representation:

1 day = 16 hexours
1 hexour = 16 hexinutes
1 hexinute = 16 hexonds
1 hexond = 16 prehexonds

Base 16 representation:

1 day = 10 hexours
1 hexour = 10 hexinutes
1 hexinute = 10 hexonds
1 hexond = 10 prehexonds

There are 86,400 seconds in a day. There are 65,536 prehexonds in a day (or rather 10000).

 

[iamtrout]

Whatever you do, don't make it ANYTHING like Chinese.

 

[Vegitto]

I like it!

By the way, the alphabet thingie reminds me of the Greek alphabet.. I mean, you're using the exact same characters, except you want to invent new characters where Greek just uses accents (ie: instead of e, é, è and ê, you want to give each of them a seperate character). Just use regular, single-'sounded' letters, and just give each differation that originated from that letter an accent, like:" 'o' = o, 'oo'= õ or something". That'd make it easier, just give each accent a distinctive meaning.

Good luck!

 

[Jeff7]

A constructed language? No one's mentioned Esperanto yet?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Atheus
I dunno about the language thing, the japanese (for example) have a completely different type of language, but it doesn't make them any better of worse than the english (for example) at any particular thing.

I would have to disagree. Their spoken and written language have a great impact on their way of thinking. It has a superstitious quality to it. They are much better at visualizing complex geometries and coming up with such geometric solutions that the rest of us scratch our head at. The art of origami is a good example of this.

I'm even more skeptical about the hexidecimal idea. As a comp sci graduate I can already translate between number bases in my head and I don't find it that useful. Math has little to do with the base you are working in, they're just an abstraction for ease of data storage.

Again I would have to disagree. The greeks/sumerians were really pushing base 12/60, because it was easier to divide and multiply into. Look at the calendar, time (60 seconds/minutes, 12 hours), circles (360 degrees) which was inherited from their cultures. We even have 12 inches in a foot carried over.

Let's setup the numerical system just like hex:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F

So let's say we want to device a new time system. Instead of the 24 hours, 60 minutes 60 seconds, we want to follow the more practical metric system.

Base 10 representation:

1 day = 16 hexours
1 hexour = 16 hexinutes
1 hexinute = 16 hexonds
1 hexond = 16 prehexonds

Base 16 representation:

1 day = 10 hexours
1 hexour = 10 hexinutes
1 hexinute = 10 hexonds
1 hexond = 10 prehexonds

There are 86,400 seconds in a day. There are 65,536 prehexonds in a day (or rather 10000).

You use the same false assumtion that came up with the metrix system people rearly need to conver between the different units so most people don't care if they need to divided.

Anyways you should go with base e.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Atheus
I dunno about the language thing, the japanese (for example) have a completely different type of language, but it doesn't make them any better of worse than the english (for example) at any particular thing.

I would have to disagree. Their spoken and written language have a great impact on their way of thinking. It has a superstitious quality to it. They are much better at visualizing complex geometries and coming up with such geometric solutions that the rest of us scratch our head at. The art of origami is a good example of this.

This idea has basically been debunked by a number of cognitive science/linguistics experiments.

 

[Rhombuss]

Originally posted by: SagaLoreThe reason I picked 16 over 8, is because it can be broken down a few times before a fraction occurs, and its a square of a prime.

Last I checked, 4 was not a prime number

This is an interesting concept, but remember that only a fraction of a percentage of the population programs. One industry where I doubt this would ever be adopted is the accounting/financial industry. R&D and institutions are usually more receptive, but the professional industries are where the greatest resistances to change would come.

Just curious though, if you were going to revolutionize our base counting system, why stop at 16? I'd say base 60 would be a lot more versatile. Sure, it takes us back to Mesopotamia and the invention of time, but imagine the sub-divisions possible?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, 60 all into 60.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Rhombuss

Originally posted by: SagaLoreThe reason I picked 16 over 8, is because it can be broken down a few times before a fraction occurs, and its a square of a prime.

Last I checked, 4 was not a prime number

Haha, oops. I meant, cube of a prime.

Originally posted by: Rhombuss
Just curious though, if you were going to revolutionize our base counting system, why stop at 16? I'd say base 60 would be a lot more versatile. Sure, it takes us back to Mesopotamia and the invention of time, but imagine the sub-divisions possible?

I don't think memorizing 60 unique symbols would be very easy to do. But, I suppose the chinese alphabet has thousands so maybe that is something worth considering. I still say the perfect system needs to be based off binary at its roots.

 

[Witling]

A couple more things. I mentioned the fluidity of language before. That hasn't been addressed. Hey, if you're going to go so far as to reform the alphabet and number system, why not reform the language. 1 symbol = 1 sound. If you look up languages you'll find that different languages have a different number of sounds they use. Do it like Unicode. Pick all the available sounds and assign a symbol to each sound. It's lovely to dream of pie in the sky.

By the way, when the Japanese decided to pick a Western alphabet to represent their language in romanic symbols, they went to Europe and, after looking around a while, picked Italian.

While we're considering the changes in the alphabet and numeral system, could we visualize the world without cancer and conflict?

 

[MAW1082]

linguistics