<p>One example of this would be the massively more complex <a href="http://www.ithkuil.net/faqs.html" rel="noreferrer">Ithkuil</a>, whose author says this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>As for a hypothetical community of Ithkuil-speakers, I do not think Ithkuil would serve the purpose of being the primary day-to-day language, as I agree the language would quickly degenerate into a “vulgar” form due to its complexity. <strong>I see Ithkuil’s hypothetical usage as being a specialized language for specific purposes where exactitude and clarity of cognitive intention is called for, and to make deliberate obfuscation difficult, e.g., political debate, the teaching and discussion of scientific disciplines, the discussion of philosophy, the written presentation and preservation of history.</strong> As such, it would be a “learned” language (like learning a computer programming language or the predicate calculus) whose structure would be consciously preserved by its speakers. An analogy might be the way that Classical Latin continued to be used for over a milennium after the death of its last native spearker for academic and religious purposes. A similar analogy is the use of Modern Standard Arabic (essentially a modernized version of Classical Arabic) in official and academic contexts.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><sup>emphasis mine</sup></p>

<p>Due to the nature of the question, it's highly inconcievable that we could answer it exhaustively.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T13:49:36.597Z
What features of Ithkuil make deliberate obfuscation difficult?
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T11:55:27.433Z
The Ca affix, which is already overprecise for basic/simple needs (e.g. by bounding the speaker to say how several subparts of an object interact together, if they are different between each other, if they are fused, ..); and Sanction and Validation, which both deal with evidentiality. If the Ca affix is required for quasi every word, Sanction and Validation aren't, but can still be mentioned optionally. That would not prevent necessarily prevent obfuscation, but that can help, I'd say
mklcp
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T12:27:43.510Z
Is it impossible to translate the *Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion* into Ithkuil?
Luís Henrique
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-19T10:37:01.307Z
Quechua is a natural language that also has this feature.
Nicole Sharp
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-19T15:47:08.797Z
@NicoleSharp [Citation required], what feature exactly?
Darkgamma
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-19T18:42:13.973Z
A built-in ability to express the certainty of statements.  It has been used in computer science for this reason.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechuan_languages#Evidentiality
Nicole Sharp
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-20T12:24:47.207Z
@NicoleSharp evidentiality is neither rare nor special.
Darkgamma
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T11:28:46.233Z
2018-02-09T11:28:46.233Z
Darkgamma
<p>All languages, natural or constructed, must have verbal negation. So, in any language, it must be possible to say something and to negate that same thing:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Sidney is in Australia.</p>
  
  <p>Sidney is not in Australia.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Since only one of these can be true, it follows that any language makes possible to say at least as many falseties as truths (in practice, many more, as we can lie that Sidney is in Russia, Gabon, or the Middle Earth). And so, no. A language cannot compel its speakers into honesty.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T13:08:35.997Z
Did you mean a person called Sidney or the largest Australian city, Sydney? ;)
Jan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T13:35:04.853Z
@Jan - good point. Which highlights the fact that sentences are always uttered, and can only be properly understood, within a given context. "Sidney is in Australia" is true in a Geography class; if answering a question on the whereabouts of a common friend, it is untrue - a misunderstanding or a pun, more probably. In other words, pragmatics will eat away any grammatical constraint on disnhonesty, even if such a thing was theoretically possible.
Luís Henrique
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T12:25:00.910Z
2018-02-10T12:25:00.910Z
Luís Henrique
<p>I don't think that languages, whether natural or constructed, have this power.</p>

<p>The fact is that there are numerous ways to be deceptive. You can straight out lie, you can speak as if there is uncertainty when really there is not, you can be deceptive through what you don't say, and you can be deceptive by saying true facts that are not actually strictly relevant, something called <a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20171114-the-disturbing-art-of-lying-by-telling-the-truth" rel="noreferrer">"paltering"</a>.</p>

<p>Like most linguists now, I think that the weak Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, that our language influences our thoughts and decisions, is surely true, but I am sceptical about the strong version, that language completely determines and limits our thought categories. Either way, I don't think it's really relevant to the aspect of human psychology which makes deception possible. Lying through omission or distraction is possible because our minds can generate multiple possible statements to make to others, each disclosing a different level of truth, but none of us are compelled to speak every thought that enters our minds.</p>

<p>Perhaps someone has invented an alien species with an alien psychology and an alien language to speak, and maybe in their universe their language does compel them to speak honestly. But what would it mean to prove such a thing, and how could anyone else present an argument to refute their claims? So for humans I say the answer is no, and for fictional creatures it's not a useful question for us to ask.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T13:38:38.850Z
2018-02-09T13:50:13.983Z
2018-02-09T13:50:13.983Z
curiousdannii
<p>George Orwell's novel <em>1984</em> introduced us to
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak" rel="noreferrer">Newspeak</a>,
a language devised by authorities to be entirely misleading.</p>

<p>Languages that attempt to guide knowledge have been termed Orwellian
and, more technically, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity" rel="noreferrer"><em>relativistic</em> or <em>Sapir-Whorf.</em></a></p>

<p>Any examples of languages that are opposite of Newspeak,
compelled to be genuine?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T22:18:29.473Z
I was wondering if eventually we'd need a sapir-whorf tag
as4s4hetic
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T08:22:49.013Z
I think the problem I have with this question is that you can be deceptive even if every statement you say is factually true, something called ["paltering"](http://goo.gl/3Z1f1k). And I don't think that would be limited to humans, so even with alien psychology I don't see how a language could wield such power. But suppose someone has created an alien species with a conlang, and they claim the language does compel the aliens to be honest, how could they prove it, and how could anyone else argue otherwise? I fear this question will just be an invitation for unfalsifiable claims.
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T09:08:50.900Z
@curiousdannii, I would checkmark your comment were it posted as an answer
lauir
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-09T23:09:35.960Z
I've seen languages where the meaning of words changed so that regardless of choice, you are always telling the truth, for example the word for lizard was /palo/ but it was also a synonym for all the traits of a lizard; green, alive, solid, etc. Every word worked like this.
TrEs-2b
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T08:07:49.790Z
@TrEs-2b What if the lizard I wanted to talk about was brown or dead? Even if there was a separate word for lizard, brown, dead, solid, I could still lie by using the wrong word (or is there something I'm missing?)
as4s4hetic
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T08:19:51.073Z
@as4s4hetic it was more of an example really. the basic principle they used was that any two objects share a trait, even a trivial one. So a language which reprograms lying to synonyms relies of those traits.

take two opposites, light and dark. Both are things we see, both are shades of brightness [not scientifically, but close enough], both are things that an object can be. So if I said it's dark out during a sunny day, the context of the language would instead change my meaning to it's a shade of brightness today.
TrEs-2b
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-10T09:02:18.270Z
ah I see, I misinterpreted then. That's really interesting though, what's the name of the language(s) that do this?
as4s4hetic
<sapir-whorf>
Are there conlangs which compel their users to speak with honesty?
# Are there conlangs which compel their users to speak with honesty?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-08)

George Orwell's novel *1984* introduced us to
[Newspeak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak),
a language devised by authorities to be entirely misleading.

Languages that attempt to guide knowledge have been termed Orwellian
and, more technically, [*relativistic* or *Sapir-Whorf.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)

Any examples of languages that are opposite of Newspeak,
compelled to be genuine?

**Tags:** sapir-whorf

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I was wondering if eventually we'd need a sapir-whorf tag  
> **username_2**: I think the problem I have with this question is that you can be deceptive even if every statement you say is factually true, something called ["paltering"](http://goo.gl/3Z1f1k). And I don't think that would be limited to humans, so even with alien psychology I don't see how a language could wield such power. But suppose someone has created an alien species with a conlang, and they claim the language does compel the aliens to be honest, how could they prove it, and how could anyone else argue otherwise? I fear this question will just be an invitation for unfalsifiable claims.  
> **username_0**: @username_2, I would checkmark your comment were it posted as an answer  
> **username_3**: I've seen languages where the meaning of words changed so that regardless of choice, you are always telling the truth, for example the word for lizard was /palo/ but it was also a synonym for all the traits of a lizard; green, alive, solid, etc. Every word worked like this.  
> **username_1**: @username_3 What if the lizard I wanted to talk about was brown or dead? Even if there was a separate word for lizard, brown, dead, solid, I could still lie by using the wrong word (or is there something I'm missing?)  
> **username_3**: @username_1 it was more of an example really. the basic principle they used was that any two objects share a trait, even a trivial one. So a language which reprograms lying to synonyms relies of those traits.  take two opposites, light and dark. Both are things we see, both are shades of brightness [not scientifically, but close enough], both are things that an object can be. So if I said it's dark out during a sunny day, the context of the language would instead change my meaning to it's a shade of brightness today.  
> **username_1**: ah I see, I misinterpreted then. That's really interesting though, what's the name of the language(s) that do this?  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-02-09. Score: 12 | Accepted answer

I don't think that languages, whether natural or constructed, have this power.

The fact is that there are numerous ways to be deceptive. You can straight out lie, you can speak as if there is uncertainty when really there is not, you can be deceptive through what you don't say, and you can be deceptive by saying true facts that are not actually strictly relevant, something called ["paltering"](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20171114-the-disturbing-art-of-lying-by-telling-the-truth).

Like most linguists now, I think that the weak Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, that our language influences our thoughts and decisions, is surely true, but I am sceptical about the strong version, that language completely determines and limits our thought categories. Either way, I don't think it's really relevant to the aspect of human psychology which makes deception possible. Lying through omission or distraction is possible because our minds can generate multiple possible statements to make to others, each disclosing a different level of truth, but none of us are compelled to speak every thought that enters our minds.

Perhaps someone has invented an alien species with an alien psychology and an alien language to speak, and maybe in their universe their language does compel them to speak honestly. But what would it mean to prove such a thing, and how could anyone else present an argument to refute their claims? So for humans I say the answer is no, and for fictional creatures it's not a useful question for us to ask.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-02-09. Score: 7

One example of this would be the massively more complex [Ithkuil](http://www.ithkuil.net/faqs.html), whose author says this:

> As for a hypothetical community of Ithkuil-speakers, I do not think Ithkuil would serve the purpose of being the primary day-to-day language, as I agree the language would quickly degenerate into a “vulgar” form due to its complexity. **I see Ithkuil’s hypothetical usage as being a specialized language for specific purposes where exactitude and clarity of cognitive intention is called for, and to make deliberate obfuscation difficult, e.g., political debate, the teaching and discussion of scientific disciplines, the discussion of philosophy, the written presentation and preservation of history.** As such, it would be a “learned” language (like learning a computer programming language or the predicate calculus) whose structure would be consciously preserved by its speakers. An analogy might be the way that Classical Latin continued to be used for over a milennium after the death of its last native spearker for academic and religious purposes. A similar analogy is the use of Modern Standard Arabic (essentially a modernized version of Classical Arabic) in official and academic contexts.

emphasis mine

Due to the nature of the question, it's highly inconcievable that we could answer it exhaustively.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: What features of Ithkuil make deliberate obfuscation difficult?  
> **username_5**: The Ca affix, which is already overprecise for basic/simple needs (e.g. by bounding the speaker to say how several subparts of an object interact together, if they are different between each other, if they are fused, ..); and Sanction and Validation, which both deal with evidentiality. If the Ca affix is required for quasi every word, Sanction and Validation aren't, but can still be mentioned optionally. That would not prevent necessarily prevent obfuscation, but that can help, I'd say  
> **username_6**: Is it impossible to translate the *Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion* into Ithkuil?  
> **username_7**: Quechua is a natural language that also has this feature.  
> **username_4**: @username_7 [Citation required], what feature exactly?  
> **username_7**: A built-in ability to express the certainty of statements.  It has been used in computer science for this reason.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechuan_languages#Evidentiality  
> **username_4**: @username_7 evidentiality is neither rare nor special.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-02-10. Score: 7

All languages, natural or constructed, must have verbal negation. So, in any language, it must be possible to say something and to negate that same thing:

> Sidney is in Australia.
>
> Sidney is not in Australia.

Since only one of these can be true, it follows that any language makes possible to say at least as many falseties as truths (in practice, many more, as we can lie that Sidney is in Russia, Gabon, or the Middle Earth). And so, no. A language cannot compel its speakers into honesty.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: Did you mean a person called Sidney or the largest Australian city, Sydney? ;)  
> **username_6**: @username_8 - good point. Which highlights the fact that sentences are always uttered, and can only be properly understood, within a given context. "Sidney is in Australia" is true in a Geography class; if answering a question on the whereabouts of a common friend, it is untrue - a misunderstanding or a pun, more probably. In other words, pragmatics will eat away any grammatical constraint on disnhonesty, even if such a thing was theoretically possible.  

---

