<p>Looking at the list of fallacies you quote, I would say this is not possible &mdash; most of them have got nothing to do with the language itself, but with the way it is used. It's a bit like making a kitchen knife that you cannot use to hurt someone with.</p>

<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition" rel="noreferrer">Fallacy of Composition</a> is related to reasoning. I cannot think of any way that a language can make that impossible. As long as you have expressive power in the language to express anything, you can express incorrect reasoning as well. The same goes for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_attribution" rel="noreferrer">False Attribution</a>, which is about how you use language, not anything in the language itself.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager" rel="noreferrer">Loki's Wager</a> refers to the absence of clear definitions or boundaries. The world is not clear-cut, so language cannot be like that either. Defining where the head starts and the neck ends is unrelated to language. Unless you want to accompany each word in that language with a <em>book</em> that defines exactly what it means.</p>

<p>Even the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_accent" rel="noreferrer">Fallacy of Accent</a> is a problem, unless you take stress patterns out of the language, which then is a lot less usable, as stress is a good way of expressing nuances of meaning.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity" rel="noreferrer">Syntactic ambiguity</a> is about the only one which could be avoided through careful language design. But most 'usable' languages have some of that as well, especially if they are reasonably complex.</p>

<p>Most of these verbal fallacies are to do with the way you use language and express meanings, which you could do in any language. Syntactic ambiguities crop up more often than you would think, but unless you are a linguist, you won't even notice most of them, as it is usually very clear which meaning is the appropriate one in the context.</p>

<p>So, my answer is no, because it is not even possible to do that.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-17T22:34:38.847Z
The fallacy of accent was removed by lojban, to make a question you put the word xu somewhere at the sentence (you don't use ? for it) the word before the xu is the word you are stressing. This fixes fallacy of accent because you need to say xu to both make the question and stress it and the specific part of the sentence the word xu is will dictate the stress, saying the same sentence in a different way will do nothing.
minoret
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-17T22:38:56.123Z
Fallacy of division use as example "...2nd grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream" you can't know if 1-The average amount of icecream the students of this second grade eat is alot of ice cream. 2-The median amount the students eat is alot. 3-The total amount they class eat collectively is alot of ice cream. 4-Each person at the class eat alot of ice cream. This could be solved by forcing the writer to specify all the choices that apply when telling that, so he can't be vague as in english, if some of the choices is not said is because it don't apply.
minoret
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-17T22:45:26.530Z
Sure -- accent would be possible. Being not vague makes a language pretty much unusable, as you have to be so wordy in every little thing you say. But you asked for **all** fallacies to be avoided.
Oliver Mason
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-18T16:05:33.170Z
@minoret, _xu_ is used to indicate a question. It can't be used when the sentence isn't a question but a statement. "*I* didn't buy the car" compared to "I didn't buy the *car*" are two different statements requiring emphasis to differentiate, and neither are questions.
Keith Morrison
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-26T11:27:32.267Z
Isn't the fallacy of accent more of a shortcoming of many writing systems that don't (usually) indicate accent even though it carries meaning? Prosody *is* part of the language after all. The ambiguity only arises once you leave it out when writing your language down.
Lukas G
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-26T12:05:01.297Z
@LukasG Yes; on the wikipedia page it states that this is "considered obscure". But I guess even if stress patterns are indicated, if you place it on an unexpected word, that might change the meaning to be confused or ambiguous.
Oliver Mason
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-26T12:50:55.503Z
In English you can stress any word in a sentence and topicalize it that way. A different language could use different methods to mark the topic of a sentence (e.g. Japanese topic marker は *wa*). If the stress *falls* on an unexpected word, most people will indicate it, as this self-demonstrating example shows. I don't see any difference in principle between (not) indicating accent in English and e.g. (not) indicating vowels in Hebrew/Arabic. Both can usually be inferred from context and can be indicated to disambiguate.
Lukas G
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-26T13:13:15.390Z
What I mean is that written language usually doesn't fully represent all aspects of the spoken language (and might at the same time differentiate things the spoken language doesn't). Is that a fallacy or just a trade-off between being practical and being perfectly unambiguous?
Lukas G
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-17T08:55:17.043Z
2020-02-17T12:33:38.023Z
2020-02-17T12:33:38.023Z
Oliver Mason
<p>Is there any constructed language that eliminated all fallacies related to how language works, that made extinct all fallacies that could be made extinct by creating a language from scratch to avoid them?</p>

<p>Some example of those fallacies: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Verbal_fallacies" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Verbal_fallacies</a></p>

<list-of-languages>
Is there any constructed language that eliminated all fallacies related to how language works?
# Is there any constructed language that eliminated all fallacies related to how language works?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-02-16)

Is there any constructed language that eliminated all fallacies related to how language works, that made extinct all fallacies that could be made extinct by creating a language from scratch to avoid them?

Some example of those fallacies: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Verbal_fallacies>

**Tags:** list-of-languages

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-02-17. Score: 6

Looking at the list of fallacies you quote, I would say this is not possible — most of them have got nothing to do with the language itself, but with the way it is used. It's a bit like making a kitchen knife that you cannot use to hurt someone with.

The [Fallacy of Composition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition) is related to reasoning. I cannot think of any way that a language can make that impossible. As long as you have expressive power in the language to express anything, you can express incorrect reasoning as well. The same goes for [False Attribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_attribution), which is about how you use language, not anything in the language itself.

[Loki's Wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager) refers to the absence of clear definitions or boundaries. The world is not clear-cut, so language cannot be like that either. Defining where the head starts and the neck ends is unrelated to language. Unless you want to accompany each word in that language with a *book* that defines exactly what it means.

Even the [Fallacy of Accent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_accent) is a problem, unless you take stress patterns out of the language, which then is a lot less usable, as stress is a good way of expressing nuances of meaning.

[Syntactic ambiguity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity) is about the only one which could be avoided through careful language design. But most 'usable' languages have some of that as well, especially if they are reasonably complex.

Most of these verbal fallacies are to do with the way you use language and express meanings, which you could do in any language. Syntactic ambiguities crop up more often than you would think, but unless you are a linguist, you won't even notice most of them, as it is usually very clear which meaning is the appropriate one in the context.

So, my answer is no, because it is not even possible to do that.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: The fallacy of accent was removed by lojban, to make a question you put the word xu somewhere at the sentence (you don't use ? for it) the word before the xu is the word you are stressing. This fixes fallacy of accent because you need to say xu to both make the question and stress it and the specific part of the sentence the word xu is will dictate the stress, saying the same sentence in a different way will do nothing.  
> **username_0**: Fallacy of division use as example "...2nd grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream" you can't know if 1-The average amount of icecream the students of this second grade eat is alot of ice cream. 2-The median amount the students eat is alot. 3-The total amount they class eat collectively is alot of ice cream. 4-Each person at the class eat alot of ice cream. This could be solved by forcing the writer to specify all the choices that apply when telling that, so he can't be vague as in english, if some of the choices is not said is because it don't apply.  
> **username_1**: Sure -- accent would be possible. Being not vague makes a language pretty much unusable, as you have to be so wordy in every little thing you say. But you asked for **all** fallacies to be avoided.  
> **username_2**: @minoret, _xu_ is used to indicate a question. It can't be used when the sentence isn't a question but a statement. "*I* didn't buy the car" compared to "I didn't buy the *car*" are two different statements requiring emphasis to differentiate, and neither are questions.  
> **username_3**: Isn't the fallacy of accent more of a shortcoming of many writing systems that don't (usually) indicate accent even though it carries meaning? Prosody *is* part of the language after all. The ambiguity only arises once you leave it out when writing your language down.  
> **username_1**: @LukasG Yes; on the wikipedia page it states that this is "considered obscure". But I guess even if stress patterns are indicated, if you place it on an unexpected word, that might change the meaning to be confused or ambiguous.  
> **username_3**: In English you can stress any word in a sentence and topicalize it that way. A different language could use different methods to mark the topic of a sentence (e.g. Japanese topic marker は *wa*). If the stress *falls* on an unexpected word, most people will indicate it, as this self-demonstrating example shows. I don't see any difference in principle between (not) indicating accent in English and e.g. (not) indicating vowels in Hebrew/Arabic. Both can usually be inferred from context and can be indicated to disambiguate.  
> **username_3**: What I mean is that written language usually doesn't fully represent all aspects of the spoken language (and might at the same time differentiate things the spoken language doesn't). Is that a fallacy or just a trade-off between being practical and being perfectly unambiguous?  

---

