Re: Universal Translators

Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:56:26 -0500

Joel "Twisty" Nye wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Lyle Burkhead wrote:
>
> >
> > Walter Wlodarski asks,
> >
> > > Do you know someone who tried to construct a language
> > > as a tool for thinking?
> >
> > One example is Loglan. There was an article about Loglan in
> > Scientific American about 1966, and later there was a book about it.
> > I don't think it was ever actually used.
>
> > Lyle
>
> Yup, that's a good'un... as well as its more up-to-date cousin called
> "LOJBAN." (A websearch on LOJBAN could tell you plenty.) It has been
> computer-tested to demonstrate that the language is NON-AMBIGUOUS when
> used in its full form. Every verb has a specified syntax for the objects
> necessary to detail its action... if an object (or subject) is implied or
> ommitted, its absence is immediately noticed. Ambiguity is still
> permissable, but simply by ommitting the information.
>

Thanks Twisty. BTW I like your pages. Do you think that there is a
possibility that we would find the most dense planets of any solar
system in the so called "zone of life" that Earth occupies? If so, this
would greatly help locate extrasolar planets.

Mike