“I like you. No- I mean I like like you. Not like love, but like like like.” -- Aye yie yie. Language is quite imperfect.
There are so many things which people understand conceptually, but it’s difficult to convert them to language. Take the example mentioned above. I like my friends. But maybe there’s someone who I like in a different way, romantically. The word love is too strong, it’s more of a crush, something in between. Crush is a reasonable way of converting this emotion, but the word has an association of being childish. Here’s a concept which is universally understood, but language—at least English—fails to provide a way to express it.
Similarly regarding the word ‘like.’ Why are there any homonyms? Why does ‘like’ mean ‘to be similar to’ and ‘to find agreeable.’ Why not just use two different words for either definition? Given the great amount of time we spend subconsciously designating definitions to words, it isn’t difficult for us to understand the differences between the meanings of homonyms, but the imprecision of homonyms can damage communication. Take the 2nd amendment for example. The word ‘militia’ can mean “a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency” or “a private group of armed individuals.” (src) There is significant debate and confusion over this word specifically. If language was more precise, the intentions of the American founders would be more clear and debate over interpretation wouldn’t be necessary.
Referring back to the use of the word ‘like,’ one could choose to use ‘similar to’ as a replacement for ‘like.’ This raises another question. Why are there words with identical meanings? It is understandable to have words with similar meanings like* ‘angry’ and ‘furious’ since they convey different degrees of the underlying emotion. Why do these words have different roots? It would be much more understandable to take some root, let's say ‘ang.’ To describe anger one would use this root. To modify it they would place on modifiers such as ‘muy’ + ‘ang’ = ‘muyang’ to mean very angry. Further complexity can exist within single words. Say someone is very angry at themself: they could use ‘auto’ + ‘muy’ + ‘ang’ = ‘automuyang’ to convey that.
Another inefficiency in language: phonetics. Why does Spanish have the rolling Rs or Arabic its guttural pronunciation or Khoisan its klicks** or sinitic languages their tones? Certainly if there were more sounds used for expression in English, one could express something quicker. Like using a higher base number system, it would take less characters to express the same thing.
Now I’ll introduce what I see as a solution: Ithkuil. Ithkuil is a language constructed for communicitory and epistemological efficiency and precision. It solves all the idiosyncrasies and issues which modern languages have. I’ve found learning about it incredibly fascinating and a great introduction to linguistics. It’s highly complex and best understood by learning from the man who created it, John Quijada, at ithkuil.net.
I agree with the claims of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that language affects a person’s cognition. If one could think in a language which was nearly perfectly efficient, they would almost certainly think quicker and more accurately. Really, they would be smarter. Ithkuil is highly impractical to actually learn since it is highly complex and there isn’t anyone to communicate with once you do. Generally, current language has many flaws, and it is good to speak more efficiently and precisely, so moving toward something like Ithkuil would be great.
*notice here another use of the word ‘like’ to mean ‘such as’
**maybe this sort of fun playing with language wouldn’t be available in Ithkuil