After reading the New York Times article about this invented language called Ithkuil, I have  mixed opinions.  Quijada states that his intention was to create a language that was more efficient and precise, as well as completely unambiguous, as opposed to the natural languages that are already in existence.  There are some cases where a person wants to be as direct as possible but then there are also those where a person doesn’t want to be easily understood.  A language like Ithkuil would force our hands, in a manner of speaking, in that there would be no choice in the matter, just like in Spanish and French there is very little choice in distinguishing the gender of a person you might be speaking about.  I also think our culture would be lacking when it comes to literature.  The ability to manipulate words, give double and sometimes triple meanings, or simply using sarcasm or irony are qualities we commend in our writers.  I can only imagine how dull a poem might be if the poet was forced to lay out explicitly what he or she meant.  On the other hand, I definitely can see the language’s usefulness when it comes to politics, which is always filled with ambiguous statements and misdirection. I would love it if politicians had no choice but to say what they actually meant. Overall though, I would say I agree with Lackoff  when he says Ithkuil is merely a piece of art as opposed to a functional language.  I can admire Ithkuil and the amount of work and creativity Quijada put into it, just as I can admire other made up languages like Klingon, but I could never really take it seriously enough to believe it was capable of functioning universally.