gone

For example there could be a scientific paper published in German its totally useless to a Punjabi unless its translated. But if everyone spoke the same language, you could read the paper and instantly approve of it or dismiss it as you understand it.

Most science is published in English.

In the old days there was more published in german, french and such. But back then this wasn't really a problem either because they were all educated people.

And before that there was of course latin and greek.

How dull the world would be without all the different languages.

Efficiency has nothing on beauty, intrigue and mystery.

Let me introduce you to a word: Esperanto.

And let me introduce you to its outcome: bollocks.

Now go introduce yourself to a Baccardi Breezer. Or, if you're feeling particularly gamey, maybe a wine spritzer. Go easy on the hard stuff though.

How dull the world would be without all the different languages.

Efficiency has nothing on beauty, intrigue and mystery.

So we should say fuck it for the sake of beauty let people with aids die? How absurd!

Most science is published in English.

In the old days there was more published in german, french and such. But back then this wasn't really a problem either because they were all educated people.

And before that there was of course latin and greek.

But my point is not that. My point is anyone will be able to read it. All humans speaking the same languages. You don't have to be a scientists to discover a problem in a scientific paper. You also don't need to be a sentiist to advance a scientific theory. Its really simple really.

It also has other benefits also.

Let me introduce you to a word: Esperanto.

And let me introduce you to its outcome: bollocks.

Now go introduce yourself to a Baccardi Breezer. Or, if you're feeling particularly gamey, maybe a wine spritzer. Go easy on the hard stuff though.

I would actually give a fuck about your opinion if you did actually refute my theory.

The mere thought of Muslim thinking in bed is enough to make me tingle.

I would actually give a fuck about your opinion if you did actually refute my theory.

He did.
Do you know what Esperanto is?

It is a new language that was started from scratch.
Perhaps you should look it up, before attempting to denigrate someone else.

The mere thought of Muslim thinking in bed is enough to make me tingle.

Really?
It made me feel a little nauseous.

He did.
Do you know what Esperanto is?

It is a new language that was started from scratch.
Perhaps you should look it up, before attempting to denigrate someone else.

Well now I do as I looked it up on wiki. Seems like poor leadership it didn't work out. You need to have money and know the right peoples. If I was a dictator I would make it compulsory for everyone to learn this language. You have to be assertive, beat people up if necessary you have to be ruthless.

Well now I do as I looked it up on wiki. Seems like poor leadership it didn't work out. You need to have money and know the right peoples. If I was a dictator I would make it compulsory for everyone to learn this language. You have to be assertive, beat people up if necessary you have to be ruthless.

Yes.
All in the name of "progress"!

But my point is not that. My point is anyone will be able to read it. All humans speaking the same languages. You don't have to be a scientists to discover a problem in a scientific paper. You also don't need to be a sentiist to advance a scientific theory. Its really simple really.

It also has other benefits also.

Although scientists write in English normal people still don't understand their language. Usually scientists go through a decade of study (or longer) before they master it themselves.

Really?
It made me feel a little nauseous.The thought of some other posters thinking in bed would make me nauseous. I'll leave out names.:cool:

The thought of some other posters thinking in bed would make me nauseous. I'll leave out names.:cool:

Oh, he's not the ONLY one. :p

Language itself is a barrier for pure conveyance. Not only are there differences between languages, but the use of language is like a shortcut that leaves out most of the truth of the matter. If we could somehow relate by coveying pure experience, then there could be no lying, no decieving, no hate, no misunderstanding.

Oh, he's not the ONLY one. :pPicture BR in his stained tighty whities with the big red elastic band wrapping around his ample soft, pasty tissue, long gray hairs growing like feral wheat on the prairie, hands locked behind the head revealing bushy, fragrant gray underarm pubes, large moles and a scaly rash. Toes wriggling with their yellowed uncut nails all twisting into a stretch to reach the donut holes on the bed table. :puke: I think I'm gonna Barf!

Yes.
All in the name of "progress"!

Yeah. As it helps people. If we had a boat and we had to row really fast to get to the shore and then there was a lazy basted on board who didn't want to row. And was slowing us down what would you do? Am sure as hell I could give him a good kicking up the ass.

Picture BR in his stained tighty whities with the big red elastic band wrapping around his ample soft, pasty tissue, long gray hairs growing like feral wheat on the prairie, hands locked behind the head revealing bushy, fragrant gray underarm pubes, large moles and a scaly rash. Toes wriggling with their yellowed uncut nails all twisting into a stretch to reach the donut holes on the bed table. :puke: I think I'm gonna Barf!

Have you ever thought about dressing up as a girl? :p

Have you ever thought about dressing up as a girl? :pOnly for you. I be your bitch! Yes?:shake:

Only for you. I be your bitch! Yes?:shake:

:eek:

Have you ever thought about dressing up as a girl? :p

Apparenly Muslim got turned on by your depiction of BR (which was brilliant - and I would wager 100% accurate, by the way).

Now I'M going to puke!

Maybe he wants to dress up a BR for you, and you dress up as Little Bo Peep.
:shake:
Still feel tingly?

Apparenly Muslim got turned on by your depiction of BR (which was brilliant - and I would wager 100% accurate, by the way).

Now I'M going to puke!

Maybe he wants to dress up a BR for you, and you dress up as Little Bo Peep.
:shake:
Still feel tingly?The tinglies are diminished somewhat, especially if he thought the BR thang was arousing....:bugeye: I give Muslom special cranberry vodka. He sleep........

The thought of some other posters thinking in bed would make me nauseous. I'll leave out names.:cool:

Oh, lord. I hope it's me.

I was thinking
Did it hurt?

The tinglies are diminished somewhat, especially if he thought the BR thang was arousing....:bugeye: I give Muslom special cranberry vodka. He sleep........

I laughed, I shuddered.

Peace out.

Oh, lord. I hope it's me.Nope. You aren't on that list.....

Nope. You aren't on that list.....

...ok wait a minute. Now I'm confused. I'm not on the list. So that means...

:eek:

Peace out dude.

I would actually give a fuck about your opinion if you did actually refute my theory.

he did.
esperanto is the most mangled, fucked up attempt at what you are referring to that man has ever embarked upon.

apparently, you dont have the foggiest idea what he was talking about.

I was thinking about this, ...

...

What do you guys reckon?


I reckon you seem to have forgotten that mathematics is the language of science.

...ok wait a minute. Now I'm confused. I'm not on the list. So that means...

:eek:

Peace out dude.You qualify as an entree!:mufc:

he did.
esperanto is the most mangled, fucked up attempt at what you are referring to that man has ever embarked upon.

apparently, you dont have the foggiest idea what he was talking about.

Well, now I just feel like learning esperanto.

If we all spoke the same language, all humans. Say we all spoke English. Don't you think things would progress much faster?I notice that you weren't brave enough to post this in the Linguistics Forum and invoke the wrath of the moderator. :) Language is a major part of culture because almost everything we think of we think of in words. Only sculptors, musicians, etc., think a significant portion of their thoughts non-verbally. Every time a language becomes extinct a certain number of the world's ideas die with it. You speak two languages, you surely have had the experience of thinking something in Punjabi that you would not have thought of in English, and vice versa.English is not a good language I don't think you can't get feel and emotion across well in English. If you read poetry in English and poetry in Punjabi the English poetry it so dull and meaningless compared to the poetry in Punjabi. There are some words associated with feelings which don't even exist in the English language.You just refuted your own theory. Each language shapes the thoughts of its speakers. Sentimental thoughts are not the only ones affected. Don't you suspect that creative thoughts, artistic thoughts, inspired thoughts, also vary from one language community to another? The only language I've spoken enough to be able to think in (and only at the level of a young child) is Chinese, and I'm always struck by how different my thoughts are in the two languages. If I were an adult scientist I would have different ideas in Chinese than I would have in English.

Science would not be advanced by the adoption of a single language. It would be impoverished. And so would the rest of human culture.So my theory is we need a new universal language. We need to start from scratch. To keep everyone happy. Most people being patriotic and shit. It will not work if we use a currently existing language.Patriotism, schmatriotism. Language follows the coin. The reason English has becom the lingua franca of much of the world is the combined economy of the anglophone countries. Notice that we have the term lingua franca because France used to occupy that role, and notice that the phrase itself is in Latin because before them the Romans had it. The way things are going, in fifty years it will probably be Chinese.I even think you can do an experiment in this. Make a paper with a scientific problem in it. Translate that paper into all languages of the world. I bet you you will find the solution much faster, then having the same paper in only English.Yes, and once again you've refuted your own hypothesis. The speakers of each new language provide a slightly different perspective on the problem and its solution. If you only had one language the effect would not be the same, regardless of which language you choose.Let me introduce you to a word: Esperanto. And let me introduce you to its outcome: bollocks.There are a couple of actual esperantistoj on SciForums and I'm one of them. Are you sufficiently familiar with the language, the movement, and its history to make such sweeping generalizations? At its peak in the 1920s and 30s it had a million speakers worldwide. It was much more popular outside the anglophone world, since anglophones are the most arrogant people on earth about their language and consider it a point of pride to know no other. In eastern Europe, where after driving for a few hours you find yourself in a place where people speak a different language from yours, Esperanto is still quite popular. When I traveled there in 1973 people saw the verda stelo (green star) on my motorcycle and introduced themselves in the language. The Universal Esperanto Association's annual congress drew more than a thousand attendees even when it was in an exhorbitantly expensive location like Portland, Oregon. The movement has lost momentum since its heyday but it's still around and those of us who speak the language have friendships we would not be able to have otherwise, and those friendships are rich resources in our lives. Much of what I know about the world was learned by first-hand communication with people in Japan, Spain, Germany, Bulgaria and other countries. I have actually spent years studying Spanish and German but I cannot communicate as effectively with Spaniards and Germans in their language as I can in Esperanto.You don't have to be a scientists to discover a problem in a scientific paper. You also don't need to be a sentiist to advance a scientific theory. Its really simple really.Duh? Where did you read that, in the Monthly Journal of UFOs and Creation Science? You can't even read the average scientific paper without at least some graduate-level courses in the discipline. The terminology alone doesn't make sense. As for laymen advancing "scientific" theories... Yes once in a while somebody makes a discovery that holds up to scientific peer review. But 99.999% of laymen's theories are infantile rubbish in which a freshman can spot the flaws. Of course since the writer doesn't understand science or its vocabulary, he can't understand what the freshman is saying so he assumes he's being "persecuted by the establishment."Well now I do as I looked Esperanto up on wiki. Seems like poor leadership it didn't work out. You need to have money and know the right peoples. If I was a dictator I would make it compulsory for everyone to learn this language. You have to be assertive, beat people up if necessary you have to be ruthless.Esperanto arose during the age of democracy and socialism so its "leadership" was collective and peaceful. Most Esperantists were and are pacifists. We would not use force to promote our goals and we think people like Bush and bin Laden who do are filoj de hundinoj.Not only are there differences between languages, but the use of language is like a shortcut that leaves out most of the truth of the matter. If we could somehow relate by coveying pure experience, then there could be no lying, no decieving, no hate, no misunderstanding.Don't forget that 75% of our communication bandwidth is non-verbal. Facial expression, body language, tone of voice, etc. Cops, con men, and other people who make a living by reading lies and deceit do it by reading that bandwidth. No different choice of language will change that.Esperanto is the most mangled, fucked up attempt at what you are referring to that man has ever embarked upon.On the contrary, it was the only one that had any success because Zamenhof did a lot of things right. Sure it's basically an Indo-European language so it's easier for speakers of English and Bengali than Xhosa and Korean, but even speakers of non-Indo-European languages develop a conversational fluency in six weeks and can read Plato or Cervantes in twelve with occasional reference to a dictionary. (If they have the intellectual acument to read those in their native language of course.) Anyone who has already gone through the process of learning a second language through formal study and who has command of at least one Indo-European language can become fluent in Esperanto in about four weeks. Contrast this with Interlingua: sure it's easy for many of us to read because it's pidgin Latin but you need a year of Latin to be able to write it.

Esperanto is an analytic language like Chinese, an analytic language like the one English will be in a couple of centuries of using its recently perfected word-building facility to coin words like "user-friendly" and "cable-ready." An analytic language like the one German could be if it stripped away its Stone Age grammatical paradigms. Unfortunately Esperanto has inflections but the paradigms are fairly simple and absolutely regular.

I was thinking
Point of origin of your problems.

Give it up.

CERN (http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html) manages to deal with multi-linguists, to the most part though those people that don't speak English as a First language usually have it as second (third or forth) language, It's only those that have English as a first language that are usually dependent upon others to speak English.

On top of that having English as the only Language for Science wouldn't work, English itself is a Bastardised language so some of the sub-components Science would use would have origin's elsewhere anyway.

Science = "Scientia" (Roman origin)
1,2,3,4 etc = Historically Arabic Numerals
Algebra uses Greek Letters and some Science is Greek to most of us.

[Feel free to correct or express these further]

Scientific progress is directly related to freedom of thought and what country in the world has continuously allowed more freedom of thought than the United States? Britian is English too but historically we've allowed more freedom. Then perhaps you could say France, but we out number them with Britain included, and they've undergone a lot of suppression in the past; then revolution, then suppression again. I think today the French surpass us in freedom of expression, but they've earned it and appreciate it more because of what they've went through throughout history. How would you explain Germany's extremely rapid scientific progress in the 19th and 20th centuries? I'm not sure. I don't think freedom has anything to do with it in Germany, but it's definitely aided by the conciseness and cognating ability of the German language to tack on an endless amount of multiple suffixes. One could argue that German should be the International Language of science, and not English.

Scientific progress is directly related to freedom of thought and what country in the world has continuously allowed more freedom of thought than the United States? Britian is English too but historically we've allowed more freedom. Then perhaps you could say France, but we out number them with Britain included, and they've undergone a lot of suppression in the past; then revolution, then suppression again. I think today the French surpass us in freedom of expression, but they've earned it and appreciate it more because of what they've went through throughout history. How would you explain Germany's extremely rapid scientific progress in the 19th and 20th centuries? I'm not sure. I don't think freedom has anything to do with it in Germany, but it's definitely aided by the conciseness and cognating ability of the German language to tack on an endless amount of multiple suffixes. One could argue that German should be the International Language of science, and not English.

I would disagree with your assertion about the United States, mainly because there are so many religious groups, corporate entities and illiterate individuals that attempt to "Dumb science down", not in the sense of making it easier to understand but just making it outright "Dumb".

I'm not undermining that there are Academic's at play from the States, for a truly fullfilling peer review system however requires a "worldly audience" since no single country alone with it's own biased views on law and structured systems would give a truly "Scientific" review.

On the contrary, it was the only one that had any success because Zamenhof did a lot of things right. Sure it's basically an Indo-European language so it's easier for speakers of English and Bengali than Xhosa and Korean, but even speakers of non-Indo-European languages develop a conversational fluency in six weeks and can read Plato or Cervantes in twelve with occasional reference to a dictionary. (If they have the intellectual acument to read those in their native language of course.) Anyone who has already gone through the process of learning a second language through formal study and who has command of at least one Indo-European language can become fluent in Esperanto in about four weeks. Contrast this with Interlingua: sure it's easy for many of us to read because it's pidgin Latin but you need a year of Latin to be able to write it.

Esperanto is an analytic language like Chinese, an analytic language like the one English will be in a couple of centuries of using its recently perfected word-building facility to coin words like "user-friendly" and "cable-ready." An analytic language like the one German could be if it stripped away its Stone Age grammatical paradigms. Unfortunately Esperanto has inflections but the paradigms are fairly simple and absolutely regular.

we will have to agree to disagree on this one...i see it as a failed language. :)

we will have to agree to disagree on this one...i see it as a failed language.I'm not clear what you mean by "success." Is an international language a success only if it's adopted by the United Nations and is taught in public schools worldwide? If it has more speakers than Frisian, a higher literacy rate than Xhosa, more university classes than Tlingit, more TV broadcasts than Cornish, more government support than Fu Qian Hua?

Esperanto is still spoken, it's still taught, there are still publications regularly issued. Its dictionaries are still updated regularly. Both original literature and translations are still published. There are Esperanto trade and professional associations, poetry, philosophy and religion groups, and even travel agencies. It's a living language.

There are textbooks for language communities as tiny as Lithuanian and as out of the mainstream as Mongolian. There is still a congress of the Universal Esperanto Association every year and numerous conventions of smaller groups.

Zamenhof was a dreamer who hoped that one day Esperanto would become an international standard, but after the idealistic 1920s and 30s, the zealots in the movement faded away as they did in all similar movements. The rank and file who took over were content with a more practical goal of keeping the language alive and ensuring its availability to anyone anywhere who wanted it.

We have succeeded. Our community uses it for its original basic purpose of communication with people in other parts of the world with whom we would otherwise be unable to communicate. There are children learning Esperanto and using it on the internet and with snail mail to make friends with children in strange foreign lands.

Esperanto is making a positive contribution, however small, to world harmony.

I can't think of a more appropriate measure of success.

I don't think freedom has anything to do with it in Germany, but it's definitely aided by the conciseness and cognating ability of the German language to tack on an endless amount of multiple suffixes.

I don't think you can attach any more affixes onto German words than you can onto English words. Highly agglutinative languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutination) such as Finnish are more capable of this.

I can't think of a more appropriate measure of success.

Indeed. It even has native speakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Esperanto_speakers).

I think this would fit best here in Linguistics rather than Free Thoughts, if you don't object, Fraggle. Peace. :m:

I don't think you can attach any more affixes onto German words than you can onto English words. Highly agglutinative languages such as Finnish are more capable of this.I don't think he means suffixes so much as simply shoving words together. That's an analytic language more than an agglutinative one. Chinese typically joins three, five is common, and I think the communists have probably set a record with their newspeak jargon. I think German is at the same level, including the newspeak jargon of the old DDR. We rarely put together more than two in English, even when we form scientific words out of mangled Latin and Greek.[Esperanto] even has native speakers.Cool. My wife is the biggest George Soros fan, I can't wait to share this. I knew about people raising their children speaking Esperanto back then but I had never seen one identified.

Esperanto is a dead language that isn't worth the time to learn because no one uses it anyways. The way technology is moving right now with automatic translation engines available for almost every language, at least every commonly used language, there is, or very soon will be, no reason for anyone in the world to bother learning any other language to translate their research work. You can simply use an internet translation engine to translate it into any language commonly used in the world. The way it stands right now, almost all noteable research work includes an English abstract, but very soon this will also be unnecessary.

Esperanto is a dead language that isn't worth the time to learn because no one uses it anyways.

This isn't at all true. I may somewhat see your point when you say it's not worth the time to learn it, but everything else I must disagree with.

The way technology is moving right now with automatic translation engines available for almost every language, at least every commonly used language, there is, or very soon will be, no reason for anyone in the world to bother learning any other language to translate their research work. You can simply use an internet translation engine to translate it into any language commonly used in the world.

Automatic translators are gonna have to get a lot better than they are right now before I'll believe there's no reason for anyone to bother learning another language in order to translate stuff.

Agglutinated. Yes, that is the word I meant to use but it slipped my tongue - limited memory. Surprised you should mention Finland, but there's been a lot of research into canine genetically inherited disorders that have been coming out of both The Netherlands and Finland lately that I've taken notice of:

LOPADOTEMACHOSELACHOGALEOKRANIOLEIPSANODRIMHY-
POTRIMMATOSILPHIOPARAOMELITOKATAKECHYMENOKICHLEPIK OSSYPHOPHATTOPERIST

German: Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübert ragungsgesetz (Law on the transference of the obligations of alertness of the labelled of the meat of bull and the designation of the bovine ones, dwells or less)

German: EinePersondiebereitistirgendeinenMißbrauchzum- erstemMalzuvergebeneseinezweiteZeitzuduldenaber nieeinedritteZei

German: DONAUDAMPFSCHIFFAHRTSELEKTRIZITAETENHAUPTBETRIEBSW ERKBAUUNTERBEAMTENGESELLSCHAFT (80 letters), "the club for subordinate ...
members.aol.com/gulfhigh2/words11.html

Finnish – ~210,000 letters long word that represents the human mitochondrial DNA (Guinness Book of Records): http://www.hut.fi/~jpakkane/sana.html
http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=04/06/24/06335692

Finnish – Longest Word for Agglutination: official Guinness world record is Finnish epäjärjestelmällistyttämättömyydellänsäkäänköhän "Wonder if he can also ... with his capability of not causing things to be unsystematic". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutination

English? For a protein: Methionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleuc ylphen-
ylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyl lysylgluta-
mylglysylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanyl yalylthre-
onylleucylglcycylaspartylprolylglicylisoleucygluta mylgluta-
minlserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucy lisoleu-
cylglutamylalanylglyclyalanylaspartylalanylleucygl utamylle-
ucylgluycylisoleucylproluylphenylalanyserylasparty prolylleu-
celalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisolleucyglut aminylaspa-
raginylalanythreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalany lalanylal-
anylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcyste inylphen-
ylalanylglglutamylmethionylleucyalanylleucylisoleu cylarginyl-
glutaminyllysylhistidylprolyuthreonylisoleucylprol ylisoleuc-
ylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasbaragi nylleucyl-
valylphenylalanylsparaginyyllysylglycylisoleucylas partylglut-
amylphenylalanylyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinyl glutamyll-
ysylvalylglycylvalylspartylserylvalylleucylvallala nylaspart-
ylvalylprolylvalvlglutaminylglutamylserylalanylpro lylpheny-
lalalrginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhist idylasp-
araginylvalylalalprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleu cylcystei-
nylprolyprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartyspartyl eucylle-
ucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyroslgly cylargin-
ylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarg inlalanyl-
glycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginyl arginyla-
nylalanylleucylprolylleucylaspaaginylhistidylleucy lvalylalan-
yllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparagimylalanyl alanypro-
lylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenlalanylglycylis oleyucyls-
erylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanyl alanylisol-
eucylalspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanyl asoleucylse-
rylglycylserylalanylisoleucylbalyllysylisoleucylis oleucylgluta-
mylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylp ronylglu-0
tamyllysylmethionylluecylalanylalanyoeucyllysylval ylpheny-
lalanylvalylglutamilylprolylmethionyllysylalanylal anylthreo-
nylarginylserine. (chem. in Mrs Byrne's Dict. See appendix 2) http://www.webspinning.com.au/home/lambertj/public_html/long.html

American Chemical Society Abstract: ACETYL¬SERYL¬TYROSYL¬SERYL¬ISL¬PHENYL¬ALANYL¬VALYL ¬PHENYL¬ANYL¬ASPARTYL¬PROLYL¬ISOLEUCYLEINYL¬THREON YL¬SERYL¬SERYL¬LEUYL¬GLUTAMINYL¬THREONYL¬GLUTAMIYL ¬GLUTAMINYL¬VALYL¬GLUTAMINYLLYL¬TRYPTOPHYL¬LYSYL¬P ROLYL¬PHVALYL¬ARGINYL¬PHENYL¬ALANYL¬PRL¬TYROSYL¬AR GINYL¬TYROSYL¬ASPAEUCYL¬ISOLEUCYL¬THREONYL¬ALANYAS PARTYL¬THREONYL¬ARGINYL¬ASPVALYL¬GLUTAMYL¬ASPARAGI NYL¬GLEONYL¬ALANYL¬GLUTAMYL¬THREONYLNYL¬VALYL¬ASPA RTYL¬ASPARTYL¬ALSERYL¬ALANYL¬ASPARAGINYL¬ISOLETAMY L¬LEUCYL¬VALYL¬ARGINYL¬GLYL¬GLUTAMINYL¬ASPARAGINYL ¬THREORYL¬GLYCYL¬LEUCYL¬VALYL¬TRYPTONE (a protein).

Maori, New Zealand: TAUMATA¬WHAKA¬TANGI¬ HANGA¬KOAUAU¬O¬TAM ATEA¬TURIPUKAKA¬PIKI¬ MAUNGA¬HORO¬NUKU¬P OKAI¬WHENUA¬KITANA¬ TAHU (A hill in New Zealand. This Maori name was in general use, but is now generally abbreviated to Taumata. The name means: the summit of the hill, where Tamatea, who is known as the land eater, slid down, climbed up and swallowed mountains, played on his nose flute to his loved one).

I don't think he means suffixes so much as simply shoving words together. That's an analytic language more than an agglutinative one. Chinese typically joins three, five is common, and I think the communists have probably set a record with their newspeak jargon. I think German is at the same level, including the newspeak jargon of the old DDR. We rarely put together more than two in English, even when we form scientific words out of mangled Latin and Greek.Cool. My wife is the biggest George Soros fan, I can't wait to share this. I knew about people raising their children speaking Esperanto back then but I had never seen one identified.
Chinese typically joins two. Sometimes three. I'm fairly fluent verbally in communication but never use five. Don't know of any five, although when looking up scientific words in Chinese dictionaries I do come across way more than that.

Don't forget that 75% of our communication bandwidth is non-verbal. Facial expression, body language, tone of voice, etc. Cops, con men, and other people who make a living by reading lies and deceit do it by reading that bandwidth. No different choice of language will change that.

Even still, non-verbal communication is a human language that is based upon subjective interpretation--i.e. it cannot be translated, by the human mind, into pure truth. To strike at the core of the problem, it is the human mind itself that is the reason we cannot convey experiences exactly. We are simply not physically capable of that kind of information processing.

Chinese typically joins two. Sometimes three. I'm fairly fluent verbally in communication but never use five. Don't know of any five.Ji qi jiao ta che, motorcycle. Gong gong qi che, bus.

In putonghua, no one calls a motorcycle that. We say: mo-tou-che. Offhand, I can't think of any five.

Wo shi Zhong-guo ren. Ni ne? Wo hen xi-huan xue-xi Zhong-guo hua. Ke-shi, yin-wei wo shi Mei-guo ren, wo zhen-de hen ben. Mei-guo ren dou yi-yang.

Count the words in common everyday conversation: not just throwing out one our two single word examples. I change my statistics. Chinese is 60-70% non-agglutinated single-syllable words. ~30-40% two. ~5% three. ~5% more than three. Adding "de" is not agglutination.