You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

KevinGrant comments on Linguistic mechanisms for less wrong cognition - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: KevinGrant 29 November 2015 02:40AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (130)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 29 November 2015 05:06:35PM 3 points [-]

My biggest gripe about English is that there is no consistent relationship between morphology and part of speech. There is a muddy, approximate relationship which is inherited from French/Latin and German, so that for example you typically know that if you see an adjective X, and see a word Xity, then the latter word is a noun meaning "property of being X". Similarly, if you see an adjective Y, and another word Yen, the latter word is a verb meaning "to make Y". But this system is not used consistently. Ideally, a listener (reader) should be able to identify the part of speech of a word immediately by inspection of phonological (typographic) expression.

If you want to follow this rule, you will need to make it easy for people to do the sorts of colloquial grammar-jumping that come up in everyday speech. For example the word "hammer" is a noun but also a verb meaning "to hit with a hammer". "Ship" is a noun but also a verb meaning "to send by ship" and so on.

Another issue with English (and probably other languages) is that prepositions are overloaded, so that the same word can mean different things, as in "Galileo saw a man with a telescope". Since with can mean both by means of and carrying/holding, the sentence is ambiguous. It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask that every important case in which a preposition must be used should correspond to a distinct word.

Comment author: KevinGrant 30 November 2015 07:31:07AM 2 points [-]

All good points, and among the strengths of conlangs in general. It still amazes me that past efforts at reforming English spelling, like President Roosevelt's, weren't accepted.