It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should we use the 100 word language Tika as a medium for global communication?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   


a dog has broken into my chicken house and eaten all my chickens?

Not so. The dog is innocent. It was a fox.
I hope that OP can translate that urgent response into Tika, because a dog's life may be at stake here.




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I thought I made it clear it wasn't a ninali house it was a ninali house, and it wasn't a ninali that broke in it was a ninali, good grief why don't you people kuta



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 

nai nala kapu
kitu...



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Sorry no speaka tika



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
madlibs for marklars



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
No, we should use English.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
We shouldn't use Tika or Esperanto or any other "made-up" language. English is well known internationally - you can learn it fast and you can get by with the use of 100 english words.
Or chinese.

There's no point making up a new language if 50% of people already know more than 100 english/chinese words. It's a childish idea



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I like the idea of much simpler, much more common language, for global stuff.

This is not black and white. Just because things like Esperanto or Tika are invented, does not mean that other languages should die out.

English is the Heinz-57 of the language world and despite its ubiquitousness, if we really wanted to have something for global communications it is not the best choice. Its pervasiveness is a side effect of economics and resulting culture, not of any worthiness of the language itself. It is illogical and confusing in many ways and is very poorly affected by accent (though not as much as some others, such as Chinese).

The average peasant whether they are in Pakistan or Kansas is unlikely to have the time, money, etc. for learning a complex language just to be able to manage basic communication should they need to travel. There ought to be a global language at this point which every country could leverage for basic signs, emergency info, travel station communications, etc. Something simple enough that you could trust that cab drivers and ferrymen in any country would be familiar with it for example. I think that's a rather neat idea.

Nothing would or should replace the evolving, distinct and creative languages that people use in their own cultures. But the reality is this: languages would actually be safer from marginalization and dilution from others, if we DID have a separate and simple and logical, easy to learn, global language, rather than everyone trying to talk to each other in so many languages and us ending up with 1001 bad variations and dialects as a result.

I think stuff like Esperanto should be looked at like basic open-source software. Let's say it's like a simple web browser. It's clean and plain and anyone can see how it works. And then, anyone can build plug-ins to expand its range. English is always going to be used for computer words for example, brand new terms the world never had before -- these tend to be incorporated into every other language already. Latin may always be used for scientific terms. And there are some words in other languages, like "gestalt" in German for example, that have such a singular meaning (much like computer words in English do) that other languages simply must adopt them because they don't have their own translation.

Even in slang this dynamic exists. I grew up in Southern coastal California, and the term 'laid back' is common, but I never knew what it meant, aside from perhaps, relaxed, not stressed, whatever. It didn't really have any meaning to me that mattered. Then I went to the Northeast coast for several months. And I finally understood what "laid back" meant: it was precisely what my people were, that these people definitely were NOT. heh!

A central, global language would not need to be terribly complicated -- it would need to be simple and functional -- though I think it is possible that 100 words is way, way TOO simple and not nearly functional enough. A global language generally does not need to talk about deep feelings; it needs to talk about weather, travel, money and time, directions, distances and measures, that kind of thing.

RC



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
RedCairo, I agree with everything except the "100 words may not be enough" part.

Why wouldn't it be? Here are some translations of simple travel phrases. If you want to know how to say anything else, just ask:

Thank you. / You're welcome. = (kini pila) puna.

Which way is ___ street? = kui pia tua ___ pia.

Who should I call in case of an emergency? = kui pikua puti puku tika tua nala tipu.

Who is it? = kui pikua.

What is the price of this? = kui nuita tulua tua puku kapi.

Where is the bathroom? = kui pia tua kia lakua panili.

What time is it? = kui tipu (kini).

Where is ____ restaurant? = kui lakiu tua kunali panili.

How do you want to pay, cash or credit card? = tupi pili nai pili kapi tulua tua puku pua tulua tiki.

How much should we leave for a tip? = kui nuita tulua tua tupi nuita tulua.

Where is the hotel? = kui pia tua tuana panili.

May I use the telephone? = puku puti nai puti lutila tupi taki tuli

I need a doctor! = puku pili nua kia puana puna pikua.

I'm calling the police! = puku pili pinita nala pikua.

Help me! = puku pili tupi kia puku puna. or in a more slangish way = puku pili puna.




edit on 26-11-2010 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
One of my daughters is a language freak.. just seems to learn them with real ease. ANyway, I showed her this. After being pretty critical about this language for being useless since the 2 major points in language are to communicate a thought and to express it.. it was impossible to express. Then she said that it sounded like a language the oompa loompas might speak.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


I can't find ANY information on the internment about this language. That struck me as very odd. Why not?
I can't answer the question you have put forth with any confidence without more information.

Please can you tell me who invented this language? Please give all information you have on origins/inventor on this language? And again why can I not find any links about this other than 2 other CT sites? Weird.

Thanks!



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by firegoggles
 


Judging by this post on unexplained mysteries the poster made the language up himself.
I'm assuming it's the same person judging by the similarity of the user name



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
100 words doesn't really sound like enough to have the kind of descriptiveness that your normal human language would have. 8 letters doesn't really sound like enough to support a decent lexicon, either. (Though, in all honesty, my real concern is that there aren't enough letters to support a decent-sized lexicon. Languages naturally evolve over time, and typically add more words, but 8 letters sounds like it would severely restrict this.) Maybe, say, 15 letters and 500 words.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Well, it would be a way of researching linguistic determinism. With such a limited morphology, it would certainly reveal some cultural concepts in the process of creating metaphor.

That is, actually, ultimately why I would believe it to be a failure. The lack of ability to specify concepts that will inevitably intrinsic to small area will create the need for metaphoric usage, which inevitably is part and parcel of language change and language differences.

Culture and Language cannot be divorced entirely, whether you favor the Strong Whorfian Hypothesis or the weak one.

Consider something as simple as fresh water (as compared to sea water, salt water, or brackish water). In English the distinction is made by using the word "fresh" to denote the potable one and "salt" to denote the salty kind.

However, this distinction is not made in the same way in many European languages. For example, in German, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian (and I'm sure many others), the term referring to sea water is still salt water, but the kind that refers to what we call "fresh" is known as "sweet water".

In Tika, the word for fresh (also denoting young, new, juvenile) is "niu". However, there is no word that applies to sweet, sugar, or candy. In a natural extension, we also find no words for fruit, berry or even nut. Additionally, no words for salt or sour exist, so making a combination with "nai" cannot even be achieved to say something like "not sour" or "not salty" mean 'sweet'.

This very fact alone will require an extreme amount of creativity by cultures that inevitably need to classify fruits, nuts and other foods into different categories. It means that only a very Orwellian Newspeak process of assigning things to the qualities "good" or "bad" would be possible. However, bad and good are very abstract and include "morality" (for good) and "wickedness" (for bad).

However, how is one to make such a leaping generalization about the tastiness of something and speak about it in terms of "sin" or "benevolence"?

The language would break down immediately upon its inception because each family group, local community, subcultures (sports clubs, music-adherents, etc.), domain-specific jargon (engineers, doctors, lawyers, academia, the sciences, etc.), non-geographic social hierarchies (religions, political institutions, etc.) and environmental areas (because food, animals and geographic features will naturally be different from place to place) would all require their own vocabularies to explain specific phenomena they put stock and importance in.

Even as small as gender. We speak about sex in terms of euphemism to avoid taboo. Tika has only one term (pina) to apply to both genders, their reproductive organs and sexuality in general. Pina would no more remain the word for both penis and vagina than "cuny" remained the word for "rabbit" in middle English, once the Norman-French import "connie" (vagina) became taboo.

Likewise, "linia" (line, straight) may determine penis and "puita" (door, opening) may label vagina. Think about it like this if you doubt such evolution, vagina comes from the same root as "vanilla", that of sheath for a sword. The sword should be obvious in our human understanding of the sex act. Similarly, a lack of a word for "vanilla" led to the Spanish creating a metaphor (vainilla, small sheath, from vaina [related to vagina], but meaning strictly sheath at the time of Spanish Discovery).



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


vagina - papikua pina
penis - napikua pina



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
See, all of the stuff people talked about thus far was able to be put into Tika in some way. Global communication is a simple language for a simple way of talking for people who do not have a language in common. It has nothing to do with getting rid of the national languages or making people "stupid" because the language lacks words. This will not be a first language, this will be a second language so if you want to use a language with a lot of words for scientific definitions or very complex mathématique equations, then use your first language. If you want an easy medium for talking to people around the word, use Tika. That being said, anymore question?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join