The article Utopian for Beginners was very interesting. John Quijada certainly had an interesting idea to create a language that hopes to eliminate ambiguity so the language would be more efficient and precise. But I wouldn’t say, I agree with his intentions completely, imprecision is what makes a language active. To be able to manipulate a sentence is what keeps the language and culture alive. One thing I was reflecting over while I was reading the article is how I use English and Hindi in my daily life. When I am trying to have conversation with my cousin who is visiting from India knows English but we rather have a conservation in Hindi , I realize how much there is a vocabulary difference between the conversation because I haven’t been using Hindi as my first language and I have been forgetting the language so while I was talking to him, in my head I was trying to translate what I was going to say, even though while I was trying to do that at some point there was a loss in translation from one language to another, one word in English would mean one thing but in Hindi it can mean other things at the same time. So in my response, I would agree with Lackoff when he states “Ithkuil is a work of art…”, in other words, language is just like art and it should preserve just like an art and I agree with that statement because art is a somewhat like a language it speaks to us not like language but in other ways.

I recognize that John Quejada was very ambitious to have the prevention of making a language as exact and precise as Mathematics. At first, I relate to Quejada because of his wanting to mix cool aspect of many languages to combine it together. This, by the way, for me would represent an incentive to learn the language.  However, from my perspective, removing all metaphors form a language would make the language  dull. Even Math has its own metaphors. These metaphors could be either clear : the sum of two and two; which is four. There are others that are more complex the product of the square root of the number 16 by the integer 1, still 4. Metaphors, apparently are intrinsic to languages or communication.

John Quijada probably made a comprehensive effort in forming this language , but, to me, unlike these Ukrainians, the language is not so much appealing.

I have never heard the word conlanging but I was somewhat aware of the phenomenon of linguistic hobbyists. It was interesting to learn how many people are doing this as a hobby and how widespread these made up languages can be. I thought it was really funny that the article referred to Yankee English as sounding like a “honking horn” I had never thought about it sounding like that and find it sort of subjective and inadequate, at least to me. The fact that Dothraki is heard by more people than the five languages mentioned combined was very eye opening and made me think about the death of a language in a new way, as well as the development of a language in a new way. I suppose the same was true of Klingon and Tolkien’s language at the time. I found it very funny that the creator of Ithquil began his language creating hobby after hearing Magma; I had a very different reaction to Magma the first time I heard it and did not even realize it was their own language so it was interesting to hear about this in music. When the article mentioned gendered languages and how it affects how we see objects I started thinking about the gendered words of the Polish language and how much that affected me and my view of objects and if  it would be negative or positive for my view of the world or simply neutral. I like that Quijada realizes his language is hypothetical and wouldn’t be widely used but would mainly be a blueprint to think about language in new more meditative, efficient and not at all vague manner. He also seemed to think that it would be perfect for philosophy which I would disagree with because I think philosophy is in itself a reflection on language and ideas expressed in different languages. I think metaphor, sarcasm and vagueness all have a place in language and that many words can be used to describe an idea or object and language does not have to be super efficient and quickly written or spoken. When he realized that the psychonetics people were using his language to create a political movement that would be more efficient after studying it and take over sovereign lands to create a new Soviet Block, it made me think of the power of language. If a language could really change the way you think about an idea and even the speed and efficiency of the idea just by speaking it differently, would it prove the Sapir-Worf hypothesis to be true?

After reading the New Yorker Article, I came away intrigued in the existence of “colangers”. What Quijada created in his language Ithjuil is an attempt that others have tried in trying to create an ideal language. The purpose of the ideal language is to be able to efficiently use complex system of communication to convey our ideas and be able to share our thoughts with others. How efficient or rather how complex he made his language is the very concept that left me intrigued. By using other languages to create Ithjuil, Quijada was able to encompass more flexibility in expression, even the written form of Ithujuil seems shorter that say English. This does not mean that is any less complicated, Uthiihuil conveys more information and meaning without using wasting any unnecessary steps. When Quijada meets with George Lakoff towards the end of the article Mr Lakoff mentions that the language is very efficient but lacks the use of metaphor in which he says “The metaphor isn’t in the words, it’s in the idea” . Mr. Lakoff also went on say that he thought the language might be impossible but if thought as an “conceptual-art project” it was fascinating. This is what I found most fascinating, in my own understanding I took this to mean that while Ithjuil was a very efficient in describing and conceptualizing everything we see and want to convey to another it lacks in giving the ideas you want to convey the  freedom of transferring meaning in a way that analogy or metaphors can do. Then again my idea of what i think this new language can do might be hampered by the very language that I am using it to describe it.

Using what Quijada calls, “conciouss intellectual effort” he sets out the  goal to create a language that is ideal. To be as logic and efficent as possible, upon reading this i was somewhat entrigued but very skeptical. To me language is a living and breathing tool that grows along with culture and society. While i understand and respect the goal that Quijada has set, I do ont neccesarily agree with him because i felt like he was trying to turn language into a boulder. After reading an example of some words, i started to think about it more. By creating a language thats was so distinct he would actually be giving speakers more power. Setting out to create a language that doesnt have words with preconcieved nontions, would only benefit the speaker. But since metaphors are embedded in the way we think, I would agree that it is an impossible language.

The article Utopian for Beginners was very interesting. John Quijada certainly had an interesting idea to create a language that hopes to eliminate vagueness so the language would be more efficient and precise. Though I would not say that I fully agree with he’s intention, for the vagueness is what makes a language alive. To be able to manipulate a sentence is what keeps the language and culture vibrant.  One thing that I was reflecting over while reading the article is how I use English. When I’m home in Sweden there are certain things I can’t translate (of course I could) because it loses its meaning in Swedish.  I would agree with Lackoff when he states that Ithkuil is a work of art, for it is but I would not go as far as saying it is functional though I agree with Quijada when he states that its optimal for political and philosophical debate.

I found it very interesting that someone would try to create a language that is so pure and without all the vagueness that is in the English language. To me it seems like a challenge that could not be completed. I came to realize through reading the article about the flaws that the English language and all the confusion it can cause people. In my personal life, my parents who’s first language is not English sometimes find speaking English can be extremely difficult because so many words sound the same and have similar meanings. The language is presented as a cross between an a priori philosophical and a logical language. It also strives to minimize the ambiguities and semantic vagueness found in natural human languages. It is amazing how the Internet was able to create a small community of language enthusiasts who began to recognize what Quijada, a civil servant without an advanced degree, had accomplished. I find it interesting that people began to catch on and really appreciate his work. Ithkuil, one Web site declared, “is a monument to human ingenuity and design.” It maybe the most complete realization of a quixotic dream that has entranced philosophers for centuries: the creation of a more perfect language.” On the website there is so much detail on how the language is used and how to construct different sentences because there is so much depth in his language.

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.