logical language - Developers

English sentences:
(a) The boy rolled down the hill.
(b) Maybe she just stopped smoking.
(c) Joe didn’t win the lottery yesterday.
(d) There is a dog on my porch.
In examining these four sentences most native English speakers would deny that any vagueness exists.
This is because the vagueness does not exist in terms of the overt meanings of the words themselves.
Rather, the vagueness lies at the nearly subconscious level of their grammatical (or syntactical) relations
and cognitive intent. For example, in sentence (a) we have no idea whether the boy chose to roll himself
down the hill or whether he was pushed against his will. (In formal linguistic terms we would say it is
unknown whether the semantic role of the subject ‘boy’ is as agent or patient.) And yet knowing which
scenario is correct is crucial to understanding the speaker’s intent in describing the action.
Imagine sentence (b) Maybe she just stopped smoking being spoken as an answer to the question ‘Why
does she seem so irritable?’ In interpreting sentence (b), we have no idea whether the subject is indeed
a smoker or not; i.e., is the speaker offering this speculation because he/she knows the subject to be a
smoker, or as mere conjecture without knowledge one way or the other whether the subject smokes or
not?
Sentence (c) Joe didn’t win the lottery yesterday illustrates four-way ambiguity. Joe’s failure to win the
lottery could be either because: the speaker knows Joe didn’t play; because the speaker knows Joe did
play but lost; because the speaker doesn’t know whether Joe played or not and is simply voicing a
conjecture; or because the statement is an inference based on some indirect clue (e.g., since Joe showed
up for work today, he must not have won the lottery).
And while sentence (d) There is a dog on my porch seems on its surface to be the most straightforward
of the four, is the intent of the speaker to simply describe and identify the participants to a scene, or
does she wish to convey the idea that the scene has personal significance to her, e.g., because she has a
phobia of dogs or has been waiting for a long-lost pet dog to return home? In other words, the sentence
itself does not convey the intent behind the utterance, only the static description of the scene.
In all four instances, such vagueness exists unless and until the audience can ascertain information from
the surrounding context of other sentences. This shows that, despite the fact that all four sentences are
grammatically well-formed English sentences whose words in and of themselves are unambiguous, their
grammar alone is insufficient to convey the cognitive information necessary to fully comprehend the
intent of the speaker’s utterance. This failure of grammar to inherently convey the requisite information
necessary to understand a speaker’s cognitive intent is a functional pitfall of human language in general
which Ithkuil grammar has been designed to avoid. The Ithkuil equivalents to the above four sentences
would mandatorily convey all of the “missing” information noted above without requiring any extra
words not corresponding to the English originals. The grammatical elements of the words themselves
(word-selection, declensions, conjugations, prefixes, suffixes, etc.) would convey all the elements
mentioned.
Similar examples can be given to show the extent to which natural languages such as English must often
resort to idiomatic expressions, metaphor, paraphrase, circumlocution and “supra-segmental”
phenomena (e.g., changing the pitch of one’s voice) in their attempts to convey a speaker’s intended