Tsm: A more efficient language

>efficiency defined as the ratio of words to letter strings
What the fuck.
Lojban fixes every legitimate deficiency English has, if you care get people to learn that.

letter count is not efficiency. your system needs a properly established root structure or something similar.

one concept a language does not make.

I thoght tht the point of r currant writtn systm was to inclode a curtain amnt of redundancy so th t err0rs don't mak it im--ssible to read.
Good luck with that and an arbitrary set of words.

completely true.

from my understanding it is that this language is about oversimplification to incite discussion on the topic you so readily pointed out

What's better Lojban or Esperanto?

esperanto by a narrow margin

mainly cos it's just english and spanish but you can already say as much with english if you know how to use it correctly

language is just a tool to communicate

Bad idea.

Your language contains no context based error checking. Instead you have a shitload of words with vastly different meanings but similar spelling.

Both are incredibly shit. English is declarative and direct.

Spanish-grammar languages are indirect, passive and ambiguous.

>Spanish-grammar languages are indirect, passive and ambiguous.
Historically, English has been the language that has screwed up the most due ambiguity in the message.

Retards can't even differentiate between then and than and you want even more words?

Just fix the education system so they are not shit. Than we can finally have a try educated society.

How do you pronounce

xkhfgbl

I suggest xukuhufugubunigger

The l is pronounced nigger.

Why not just learn mandarin and become a ching chong chinaman? same shit

Other languages make use of rolling 'r's and making hacking noises in the throat which not everyone is capable of doing, myself included.

However, English pronunciation is very clear with no accents on their letters and each letter being distinct, unlike for instance the Maori letter 'wh' is a combined singular letter which makes a 'f' sound. It's ergonomic and easy to pronounce, the words themselves are more difficult but our language incorporates Brythonic, Anglo, Latin, Dane and is rich and cultural so fuck off you globalist.

TSM TSM TSM TSM TSM TSM TSM

You aren't able to do it 'cause u didn't grew in the proper ambient. If english is so easy to pronounce why can't do it properly most of chinese people?

...

It might cost you less keystrokes but I'm pretty sure it's not very efficient when spoken

Except I can barely make out what you were trying to say. English is such a waste of arbitrary letters and so complicated that I have no idea why it's so popular.

lojban is fine though.

FPBP. Fukken r8kt m9

OP you are shit are retarded and you is 2.
wat we hav now:
>words make sense and relate each other using common parts. Parts&rules used to construct new words that also make sense
What u prupose:
>literally 1 million randomly generated sequences you need to straight up memorize

Fine for what though?

...

Just because English grammar taught you about ambiguity and errors doesn't mean actual use is ambiguous. The whole point was to teach you to speak and write unambiguously.

Use active voice, don't overuse pronouns, clarity of message is most important.

I propose an even more efficient language. I call it Au-Tsm. The future of language.

In the Au-Tsm language, words are written with only 2 different letters. Words are of variable length, so the language accommodates [math]\sum_{k = 1}^{n}2^k[/math] different words, if we limit ourselves to words of n letters or less. With a maximum word length of 20, we have over 2 million possible words. All with only 2 letters!

The two letters are the constants t and p, which are phonetically the same as they are in English. As you can imagine, this allows for extremely rapid pronunciation of words, with practice. If a word has many repeated t's, the speaker can alternate between a t and k sound to double pronunciation speed (think "tikatikatikatika..."). Similarly, repeated p's can be pronounced by alternated between a p and d sound ("puduhpuduh..").

What do you guys think?

Adfjvcf kjhijfh ojvihcu, hhhhljg? Fhjjhch kkkkfgj hhhoppp :D

I think words will end up written with four letters, to capture the two different sounds of each.
You fail.
Hard.

What is your ideal language?
For me, it should have
>contextless distinction between plural and non-plural forms
>absolutely no homophones
>each character in the written form can only be pronounced one way
>context should not depend on pitch or amplitude of the speakers voice
>maximum of 30 written characters

did i miss anything?

Fewer words. Fewer.

>English pronunciation is very clear with no accents on their letters and each letter being distinct
That's all bullshit and you know it.
- read vs read, present vs present, tear vs tear, etc.
- American vs British English
- Words not even native speakers can pronounce correctly like 'colonel', 'nuclear' and 'worcestershire'
- Shit like this (lie -> lay, lay - laid)

English is a shit language, deal with it.

Why two letters? Why not just use the letter t with words delineated by spaces/pauses? Every possible concept can be mapped onto t-strings of varying lengths, which ALSO allows for mapping every word onto the natural numbers. Then, instead of using the t's, we can communicate using strings of numbers.

when was the last time you actually talkes to a human person? sounds like its been quite a while..

One of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

Wrong. The "p" sound could have "d" as an allophone. [p]->[d] / [p]_
and the "t" sound could have "k" as an allophone. [t]->[k] / [t]_
Just like Spanish doesn't need an extra letter for the intervocallic allophones of voiced plosives, this guy's orthography doesn't need letters for allophones.

>words not even native speakers can pronounce correctly
>native speakers

out of Veeky Forums nigger

Suggestion: replace 'p' with 'b'.
This would essentially split the alphabet into voiceless and voiced consonants, with the specific choice of consonant (b/d/g for voiced, t/p/k for voiceless) guided by 100% euphonic considerations and 0% semantic considerations.

Ummmm... ok. So you created a language without actually creating a language?

Because the Chinese are subhumans.

>the specific choice of consonant guided by 100% euphonic considerations and 0% semantic considerations
the idea that the meanings of a word has (except for onomatopoeia) zero impact on the sounds in the word is true of all languages.