Conlang thread

Have any of you tried learning a constructed language? I remember being autistic enough to try lojban at uni, I actually had a friend who did the same and we would have a circlejerk.

>>24
Transhumanist garbage. You will never fuck a computer.

>>26
The grammar asserted by neurolinguistics is not the grammar you are taught in school. It is not prescriptive or even verbal, it is formalized logic and is computational. Prescriptive and descriptive grammars are models, the actual cognition involved in processing and creating thoughts using strict syntactical rules that you are not even conscious of while doing is not a model, your own post demonstrates that it is real. It is in the category of things that cannot be said to not exist because to even make the argument assumes its existence: you cannot form a thought without grammar, you cannot communicate without grammar; all thoughts are inherently grammatical, no matter what model you use to describe that thought process. Even your attempts at making ungrammatical sentences will follow unconscious syntactical rules.

It's not even the case that neural networks don't use construction grammar or formal grammar, where did you even get this assumption? It's so obvious you don't know what you are talking about. You are just reacting from your gut to topics you know nothing about. If you are the same person I was responding to initially before this retarded argument began, it's obvious you know nothing, you thought Greek was a proto language and you thought John 1 was the beginning of the Bible, and if you're not that person, why did you even step in with this aside? The conversation is about conlangs, and recon langs fall into this category, your ignorant opinion on linguistics doesn't have anything to do with that.