Language is a way of communicating, and it is what makes humans rational, because through it, experiences can be accumulated for future generations, a human of yesteryear had the science provided by the language of that time, just like today, when we talk about scientists, mathematicians, farmers or cattle breeders or etc. … they have the science that the language has given them through whatever era, but the most important thing is the accumulation of knowledge of the individual, because the accumulation of wisdom is only for the person who has the appropriate language, for example, the construction of a spaceship will only enter there those who have the same language, a farmer, could not enter with this language, the language as I say it is a means of progress, Language, as I say, is a means of progress, because the accumulation of knowledge in future generations from previous experiences makes it more and more a multiplier of science and experience, and so obviously it is transmitted live in the culture of this tribe, people, civilisation or culture, the difference between a person and an animal is precisely this, the language, a bird or another animal makes its nest the same as thousands of years ago, and why? Because of language, the animal has not progressed, because of the consequence of language since they do not accumulate the experiences lived, and precisely this accumulation of knowledge and experiences makes human beings progress through the accumulation of human experiences, well, but language is also many things, it is very important what I have said about an accumulator of science and experiences, but we must not forget that in addition to all this, language is also a very important communicator, leaving out the characteristic of accumulation of science, for example when we talk to a person we want to communicate a behaviour or we want to explain something, an idea or we want them to tell us something, it is a bidirectional communication depending on what I say, my interlocutor will say an answer, an input will cause an output, and this communication is very complex, one can ask something and the answer is not necessarily at first sight, because it can have a connection with the question or at least a connection, but it is clear that if you ask something, the answer has to have a connection with the question or at least a connection with the question, the answer has to have a connection with the question, and that’s the way language is today, it can be unclear, not very concise and sometimes very stilted, it’s not always like that, but it can be like that, written language is much clearer and more concise, and the messages that are made with writing are much clearer, written communication is much slower and not as flexible as verbal communication, today language is a bit more complex because language has been following in parallel with technology, and so it has meant that there are other means of language, which have a massive importance with communication, well, I am not more interested with the communication of language, not that I am interested, not only with it, but what I want to talk about here is verbal language, well, the importance of languages is as I said those that make us rational, however, language is still in a very primitive and undeveloped state, and there are times that it does not make sense, there is a Spanish saying that says “I say, I say, when I say Diego! It’s when you want to say something but you don’t say anything, it’s a bit of a trick, well that’s the way language is, sometimes you can spend two hours talking without saying anything, a person can be talking for a long time and you can continue the conversation without committing yourself to anything and even without committing yourself to anything, without committing yourself to anything and even if you want you don’t even need to listen to them, they just look at the interlocutor’s mouth, when it closes you can say, “yes”, or “no”, “man don’t tell me”, “don’t bother me”, “it’s true”, “Yes”, “No”, “Shut up”, etc…… you don’t even need to open your mouth, a sigh or something like that, surely you have experienced or lived this, haven’t you? because it is something that happens every day, I think it is very important that when you say “yes” it means yes and when you say no it means no, nowadays language is very indefinite, we don’t always want to commit ourselves, it is also very tricky, and yes, when you say a postulate, you don’t always say what you think, in this way we can always say that it wasn’t that, but that it was something else, in this way language is not an exact science, life on our planet is very complex and can only be explained with the science of philosophy, and Poetry, philosophy explains the complicated web of life in a simple way, Poetry describing the moments or feelings of life, philosophy describes in general what is complicated or difficult with language, and poetry is the detail or feelings of life, it is the revelation of the same life explained through a language where language has another meaning, Philosophy and Poetry have a lot in common, both use language, but very different, well it is not my intention to enter neither in Philosophy nor in Poetry but on the contrary, a new, cold, anti-philosophical and anti-poetic language, but concise that you can count on it, because it says what you think without any prejudice, it is a bit complicated at the beginning but it is very revolutionary, and I think it can come to stay here, in my problem is that, two people who have been talking and have come up with something, but afterwards, the result is that it was not like they had talked, and even if they had recorded it with a tape recorder, the result would have been the same and this would have been the same, the result would have been the same and this is because when a person speaks, even if he believes that the language he has used has been very concrete, it has not been so, and this is why language is very objective and biased, even if we say something that we think is very concrete, that which may be different for one person may be different for another person, when we say yes or affirm something we can say yes or we can make a gesture with the head or say another word that can be understood as yes, but it does not necessarily mean yes, if it is negative, we can say no, or say some word that suggests the negativity of the negation, but anyway the “yes” or “no” is not absolute, the language looks for a solution many times not for the interlocutor but for himself, to be able to mitigate these effects, and to be able to clarify and concretise our ideas so that they cannot be distorted, we have to make a more exact science, the idea would be to numeralise or mathematise or digitalise language, and like this, I can say that it is a very exhaustive work, because it is very complex and it would need at least one or several university chairs of grammar, philosophy and letters and one or several universities, philosophy and literature and one or several universities of telecommunications, all well united to make this project that could involve all the students, but the idea is very interesting, it would be very constructive because it could make a very accurate language, it would open the possibility of a translation of all languages instantly and not only of one, but of all existing languages.
Well, let’s start with the idea, which is really very simple, when we say “yes” this is an affirmation and with that word we will give it the value of for example 100, if we make a negation for example we say “No” we will give it a value of 200. The value 100, would be a value that would be representative for all Chinese languages, Japanese all the languages of the world would be a “Yes” and a “No” 200, well a numerical value, the language is as I have said very flexible and biased by the verbal communicator, not here, here it would be exact, and also better, but clear and concise, to make the numerical language closer to the verbal, but never misleading or tricky, for example, it can be given, For example, it can happen that a person communicates with a strong “Yes” and another that this “Yes” is reluctantly, semantically there is not much difference between these two “Sis”, and here is when the verbal communication deceives and betrays us, because verbally for the person there is only one “Yes”, with the Numerical or Mathematical Language, that I call from now on, “LNM” we said that the “Yes” has a value of 100 this would be the maximum statement or the maximum value to an affirmation, the affirmation could have 5 values for example 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, where 96 would be a “Yes” but with a weak affirmation and 100 with a strong affirmation, well my whole idea is based on this, to give a numerical or digital value to a word, and perhaps later with a phrase in order to make the language concrete and be able to industrialise it, it is a very difficult task, to make an idea concrete when there is an international agreement between languages it is enormously difficult to synthesise an agreement, It would be a good task to clarify the language, to say things with the exact semantics, or the exact number that a digital device could translate and would force the sender of the message to tell the truth of what he thinks.
Enric Giné I Orengo