In many programming languages, phrases are shortened to reduce the time taken to write programs. “var” instead of “variable”, “int” instead of integer, etc. This makes writing code much faster, but what if this was applied to the whole of the English language?
If programmers were to have the power to change how words are spelt and pronounced, what would change? Is every word shortened to three or four letters? Would leet speak become dominant? How practical would it be, how much more productive would the (English speaking) population be?
As for other languages, I’m not sure how well it would work. A majority of programming languages are based on English, and many other languages have restrictions that make it more difficult to change the spellings like this (e.g. gendered words, alphabet-less character sets). English, on the other hand, is infamous for having more exceptions than there are rules.
You must log in or register to comment.
selfthinkthis.good_idea = TrueNothing is stopping programmers from inventing and using new words. Getting people to use those words is another matter. You are hand waving the ability for programmers to dictate to non-programmers how language is used, but I think that hand waving also hand waves the idea of language to begin with. So I don’t think any answer you get will be meaningful.
There already are plenty of conlangs (constructed languages). The main thing that differentiates them from natural languages is the fact that their grammar generally doesn’t have any exceptions (irregular verbs or nouns). It would be possible to create such a language based on the grammar and vocabulary of English.
The only conlang I’m proficient in is Esperanto, which definitely works very well for practical communication. One cool feature about Esperanto is the system of prefixes and suffixes that acts as a vocabulary shortcut, for example the word for “cold” is just “un-warm” (varma / malvarma), or the word for “school” is just “learning-place” (lerni / lernejo). The language you’re imagining would likely also consist of words like “unwarm” and “learnery”.
Meanwhile I don’t think the length of (root) words needs to be especially short. Studies have found that all languages transmit information at approximately the same rate, which is why Spanish with its relatively long words seems to be spoken so fast. Human brain capacity is a limiting factor for things like that.
I came here looking for Esperanto and was not disappointed.
I
use Archspeak Esperanto btw
Studies have found that all languages transmit information at approximately the same rate
Is this only true in speech? Japanese as an example is much more dense in text than English and can convey more information in fewer written characters.
But, those characters take longer to write and often have multisyllabic pronunciation, so speech would be unaffected.
Yes, of course I’m talking about spoken language. Of course if English were written in kanji we would need fewer characters to express the same information, but it wouldn’t change the spoken language at all.
(I remember learning the following graphical user interface design rule: switch your application to Spanish or Portuguese to check whether UI messages still fit in the boxes you’ve put them in. Spanish and Portuguese are the common languages that need the most characters per unit of information.)
ii would probably be doubleplusungood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)
You must not get out much. Since people already do this. Examples: r u, gng, lol, rizz. And more
Does this need to be a
share.googletracking link?And we’re constantly doing this. If a word is used a lot and the word is long, we’re going to shorten it.
import charisma as rizz import good_game as ggSo late 90s early 2000 SMS speak?
#include <grammar>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int programmer;
if (programmer > -1) { cout << "Programmers be owning your language. "; }
cout << “Plonk! Fnord!”;
return 0; }
They may have already had a go at German, where common word pairs are collapsed into macros (i.e. “in dem” (“in the”) becomes “im”, “zu der” becomes “zur” and so on).
Same in English…
Can’t, won’t, you’dn’t’ve, and if we get into dialects then you get things like owt (anything), nowt (nothing), ont (on the) and int (in the).
There kind of was some attempts, but more from the point of view to strip down the language as a way to standardize it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_English
It isn’t so much a reform on spelling as it is a way to standardize vocabulary to make it as mutually intelligible to non-native speakers
You should read the New Yorker article “Utopian for Beginners” by Joshua Foer. Really interesting with a dark twist.
