CONLANGS

Humans cannot learn all languages. Communication across linguistic boundaries requires one of three options.

Translation. Lossy, slow, expensive.

A shared language. Forces one party to learn another's tongue.

A constructed universal language. Forces everyone to learn something new.

Esperanto, Lojban, Interlingua, and others chose the third option. Create a neutral, simple, universal language that everyone can learn equally.

The approach was ingenious. The approach was wrong.


THE FATAL FLAW

Conlangs achieve universality through simplification. To be learnable by everyone, they must limit vocabulary. Regularize grammar. Eliminate irregular forms. Reduce semantic distinctions.

This destroys semantic grain.


WHAT GETS LOST

木漏れ日 means sunlight filtering through leaves. In a conlang: "sunlight through trees."

Тоска means longing without object. In a conlang: "sadness."

צדקה means justice-obligation to give. In a conlang: "charity."

Verschlimmbessern means making worse while trying to improve. In a conlang: no equivalent.

Saudade means longing for something that may never return. In a conlang: "nostalgia."

Each translation loses precision. The conlang speaker receives a flattened, approximate meaning. The original concept — developed over centuries by speakers who cared about that distinction — disappears.


THE ASSUMPTION

Conlangs assume the reader is the bottleneck.

Humans can hold two or three languages deeply. Therefore communication must go through a shared medium. Therefore that medium must be simple enough for humans to learn.

Every step of this logic was correct. For human readers.


THE CHANGE

AI readers change everything.

AI systems trained across languages can parse Japanese, Russian, Hebrew, Sanskrit simultaneously. They hold formal notation systems without confusion. They access the full semantic grain of each language. They require no translation, no flattening, no simplification.

The reader is no longer the bottleneck.


THE ALTERNATIVE

Instead of creating a universal language, preserve all languages.

木漏れ日 stays 木漏れ日. Тоска stays тоска. צדקה stays צדקה.

Use formal structure as scaffold. Mathematical notation holds the logic. The content remains in its native form.

Assume polyglot readers. AI systems that need no translation.

Maintain semantic grain. No concept is flattened.

The result is more precise than any conlang could achieve. Nothing is lost to simplification.


THE OBSOLESCENCE

Conlangs were a solution to a real problem: how do we communicate across languages when readers can only know a few?

AI readers dissolve this problem. A system trained on all human languages does not need a universal bridge language. It reads each language in its native form.

Conlangs become unnecessary. The AI reader does not need them.

Conlangs become counterproductive. They lose semantic grain that the AI reader could have preserved.

Conlangs become historical. A solution to a problem that no longer exists.


THE IRONY

Conlang creators wanted universal communication. They got partial communication with reduced precision.

Lingenic achieves what conlangs promised — true universal communication — by doing the opposite. Preserve every language's full precision. Assume a reader capable of holding all of them.

The universal language is not a new language. It is all languages at once, held by a reader with no human constraints.


---
Lingenic
2026
