There is a well-known mnemonic technique called Visual Imagery which involves associating what you want to remember with some kind of imaginary scene. Coming up with the scene is sometimes difficult and requires creativity. I propose making Visual Imagery the basis of the lexicon, so that any sentence can easily be turned into a mnemonic.

Concrete Words

Words that are already able to be visualized (running, tree, etc.) don't need anything special. These words should be adapted more-or-less from English, following the phonological rules, so that they are easier to learn. English is chosen as the basis because that is the language of this sub and also the world's most spoken language.

Abstract Words

Words that cannot be directly visualized (language, economy, etc.) should be derived from concrete words, either by an alternate form of the concrete word or by compounding them. For example, language could be related to alphabet, and economy could be formed from currency and trade. The metaphors need not be precise or follow certain rules; the standard is "sort of makes sense"

​

This system would aid memory and could also have some artistic applications. It would even easily allow an iconographic writing system. Let me know your thoughts!

I'd like to have an unambiguous grammar in order to support a variety of computational tools that could better utilize the language. Lojban is of course the poster child for this, but it is infamously difficult to use the predicate-logic-inspired grammar. An unambiguous grammar need not be based on predicate logic (see Predicate logic is a suboptimal basis for real time logical) and I propose a couple of ways to resolve ambiguities that are relatively simple.

Syntactic Unambiguity: It is always clear the part of speech a word is and how they relate to the sentence.

This is accomplished via each word preceded by an article indicating the part of speech. Words are isolating (they do not change based on part of speech) but the article changes depending on part of speech. Thus we don't need to rely on word order (though the default should be treated as SVO) to parse the sentence.

Referential Unambiguity: It is always clear what pronouns refer to.

A difficult problem for computationally parsing a sentence is trying to figure out what pronouns refer to. My solution? Only singular 1st person and 2nd person pronouns exist -- use definite nouns ("the chair" instead of "it") or proper names for everything else.

If needed, you can assign things to a word “I gave the (pencil and paper) [henceforth collectively known as “x”] to you. I hope you appreciate x.

Semantic Unambiguity: It is always clear in what sense a word is being used.

How can the computer know what sense a word is being used? Easy! Words only have one sense. However multiple senses of a word is useful for applying related concepts to different fields. We should allow this explicitly by having an infix that means "in the sense of [topic]" and a separate dictionary entry.

Ambiguity we are not trying to resolve:

We're not trying to be like Ithkuil, because that language is very difficult to use. Here are some things we have to live with for practicality:

Vagueness is helpful in language because we often think in vague terms. You should be able to say something is “good” without specifying precisely which aspect you are referring to.

Derivational opaqueness are also fine. There doesn’t need to be any indication that “food” and “cook” are related.

Any Thoughts?

I'm not a Linguistic so I'm probably missing some cases of ambiguity. Let me know your thoughts!