12

I don't think that languages, whether natural or constructed, have this power. The fact is that there are numerous ways to be deceptive. You can straight out lie, you can speak as if there is uncertainty when really there is not, you can be deceptive through what you don't say, and you can be deceptive by saying true facts that are not actually strictly ...


11

Implement some "levels of trust" in the language: Design phrases or word choices that signal the initiated that you are talking to non-trusted people or that non-trusted people may be listening, design other phrases that signal that you can talk more freely. I have heard (but I don't have hard references for this) that travellers and gypsies in Europe have ...


10

To gauge how well these languages have achieved their goals, we really need to quantify what exactly achieving those goals would entail, and what steps along that path we would consider progress. What constitutes success for Toki Pona or Loglan? A world of people thinking differently? A small group of speakers who have improved the way they think ...


7

One example of this would be the massively more complex Ithkuil, whose author says this: As for a hypothetical community of Ithkuil-speakers, I do not think Ithkuil would serve the purpose of being the primary day-to-day language, as I agree the language would quickly degenerate into a “vulgar” form due to its complexity. I see Ithkuil’s hypothetical ...


6

All languages, natural or constructed, must have verbal negation. So, in any language, it must be possible to say something and to negate that same thing: Sidney is in Australia. Sidney is not in Australia. Since only one of these can be true, it follows that any language makes possible to say at least as many falseties as truths (in practice, many ...


5

You may be interested in E-Prime. E-Prime is a version of English that excludes all forms of the verb to be, including all conjugations, contractions and archaic forms. This makes many objective statements like "Roses are red" impossible. Instead a person is required to use more subjective constructions like "Roses appear red to me".


4

Basically, your question is misstated. In our own world, languages cannot enforce philosophies. You can be a Hegelian, a Tomist, a Berkelian, or a Marxist, in any given language, from Modern English to Ancient Farsi. After all, all languages have this pesky word, "no", so that anything that can be affirmed can also be negated. In a constructed world, ...


2

We can have two classes of nouns: souls, and the perceptions and ideas of souls. Ideas nouns must be inflected for who they are being perceived by: you, God, or whoever. This would have the effect of turning a sentence like "The dog is red" into "The dog seems red to me." Secondly, instead of saying "The dog…" or "There is a dog…", you would say "I have the ...


1

Incomprensive languages on themselves never stopped conquering by brute force; the winner's language being imposed on the conquered people. Forbidding the local language. Out of respect for many fine people in China, I will not mention China. China itself was under colonial suppression with even Opium, though Chinese is hard to master for an European. The ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible