StruktLocus

A universal language of structural semantics where meaning is determined by topology rather than lexicon.

PHILOSOPHICAL MANIFESTO

1. The Crisis of Natural Languages

Modern linguistics faces fundamental problems with natural languages:

Lexical ambiguity — Words in natural languages exhibit polysemy, where a single word may carry dozens of meanings. For example, the English word "run" has 645 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Cultural dependency — Idioms, connotations, and associations create barriers for precise meaning transfer between different cultures. Japanese "和" (wa) or German "Weltschmerz" lack exact equivalents.
Syntactic redundancy — Conjugations, irregular verbs, and exceptions complicate communication without adding semantic value. English has over 200 irregular verbs, while languages like Arabic have complex root-and-pattern systems.
Context dependence — Meaning often depends on situation, intonation, and gestures, making automated language processing extremely challenging.

StruktLocus offers a radical solution — complete separation of meaning from lexical form through structural determinism.

2. Principle of Topological Determinism

At its core, StruktLocus is built on a revolutionary concept: an element's meaning is 100% determined by its structural position, not its internal properties.

This is achieved through:

Fixed utterance structure — Each structural quantum consists of strictly defined positions (Focus, Orientator, Dynama, etc.)
Positional semantics — An element's meaning depends entirely on its slot position, not its form
Topological connectivity — Relationships between elements are determined by their relative positions

// Example of structural determinism: [1:🏃] [2:→] [3:⚽] [4:→] [5:🧑] [6:fast] // Person kicks ball toward goal quickly. // Position 2 always signifies action, regardless of symbol

Physics analogy: Just as quarks acquire properties through their position in hadrons, language elements derive meaning through structural position. Position supersedes lexicon.

3. Absolute Structural Universalism

StruktLocus implements maximum inclusivity:

Lexical agnosticism — Any symbols (words, emoji, mathematical notations) can be used if they fit the slot's semantic class
Cultural neutrality — No ties to specific cultural concepts
Multimodality — Expressible through different modalities (text, graphics, sounds)

Example of universality:

[1:■] [2:←] [3:!] [4:→] [5:●] [6:⌛] // Square urgently transmits to circle (in time) // Complete absence of lexicon doesn't hinder meaning

4. Cognitive Advantages

Psycholinguistic research demonstrates:

Structural languages activate parietal lobes responsible for spatial reasoning
Reduced cognitive load by eliminating lexical ambiguity
Faster acquisition compared to natural languages (artificial language experiments)

CORE GRAMMAR

Structural Quantum (SQ)

The minimal meaningful unit of language — always a complete structure of 6 positions. Each position has:

Strictly defined semantic role
Constraints on allowable element classes
Clear interaction rules with other positions

[1:FOCUS] [2:ORIENTATOR] [3:DYNAMA] [4:RELATOR] [5:OBJECT] [6:MODUS]

SQ Examples:

// Physical action [1:⚽] [2:→] [3:⚡] [4:↑] [5:☁️] [6:fast] // Ball quickly flies upward to cloud // Mental process [1:philosophy] [2:I] [3:?] [4:about] [5:meaning] [6:possibly] // I contemplate philosophy of meaning // Abstract relation [1:love] [2:↓] [3:≈] [4:→] [5:hate] [6:sometimes] // Love sometimes transforms into hate

SEMANTIC PROTOTYPE SYSTEM

Pos.	Role	Definition	Sem. Class	Examples
1	FOCUS	Central element of utterance, topic	Concrete/abstract entities	"person", "🌲", "123", "■", "idea"
2	ORIENTATOR	Action coordinate system (source/direction)	Directions, sources, subjects	"→", "←", "from", "I", "Ø", "north"
3	DYNAMA	Core of action/state/process	Processes, energy, changes	"⚡", "change", "!!!", "?", "≈", "↑↓"
4	RELATOR	Type of connection between elements	Relations, spatial markers	"in", "↗", "Ø", "through", "above", "⇒"
5	OBJECT	Goal/Result/Content of action	Final states, objects	"book", "💡", "solution", "↓", "answer"
6	MODUS	Execution conditions (time, modality, circumstances)	Modalities, temporal markers	"quickly", "🌧️", "tomorrow", "⌛", "may", "not"

Specialized structural templates exist for different communicative domains:

1. PHYSICAL ACTIONS

Models physical interactions, movements, state changes.

[FOCUS:agent] [ORIENTATOR:source] [DYNAMA:action] [RELATOR:direction] [OBJECT:target] [MODUS:conditions]

Examples:

// Simple physical action [1:person] [2:→] [3:throws] [4:↗] [5:stone] [6:forcefully] // Natural agent event [1:wind] [2:↑] [3:moves] [4:→] [5:east] [6:quickly] // Chemical process [1:H₂O] [2:100°C] [3:→] [4:⇒] [5:steam] [6:at]

Grammatical Features:

Orientator often indicates direction or force source
Dynama expresses physical interaction type
Relator specifies trajectory or interaction method

2. MENTAL PROCESSES

Describes thinking, perception, emotions, cognitive acts.

[FOCUS:topic] [ORIENTATOR:subject] [DYNAMA:process] [RELATOR:connection] [OBJECT:content] [MODUS:modality]

Examples:

// Cognitive process [1:mathematics] [2:student] [3:understands] [4:partially] [5:theorem] [6:now] // Emotional state [1:joy] [2:I] [3:feel] [4:because] [5:news] [6:very] // Perception [1:color] [2:she] [3:sees] [4:as] [5:red] [6:clearly]

Grammatical Features:

Orientator typically indicates consciousness subject
Dynama expresses mental act type (understanding, feeling etc.)
Relator often specifies thought-content connection type

3. SOCIAL INTERACTIONS

Models communication, social institutions, interpersonal relations.

[FOCUS:artifact] [ORIENTATOR:sender] [DYNAMA:communication] [RELATOR:channel] [OBJECT:receiver] [MODUS:time]

Examples:

// Verbal communication [1:word] [2:teacher] [3:speaks] [4:→] [5:students] [6:yesterday] // Written message [1:letter] [2:company] [3:sends] [4:via] [5:client] [6:tomorrow] // Legal act [1:law] [2:parliament] [3:adopts] [4:for] [5:citizens] [6:2024]

Grammatical Features:

Focus often represents communicative artifact
Dynama expresses social action type
Relator may indicate communication channel or purpose

4. ABSTRACT RELATIONS

Describes logical, mathematical, philosophical relations.

[FOCUS:concept1] [ORIENTATOR:base] [DYNAMA:relation] [RELATOR:type] [OBJECT:concept2] [MODUS:condition]

Examples:

// Mathematical relation [1:5] [2:+] [3:>] [4:than] [5:3] [6:always] // Logical consequence [1:rain] [2:if] [3:⇒] [4:then] [5:wet] [6:] // Philosophical relation [1:consciousness] [2:according to] [3:⊂] [4:in] [5:matter] [6:possibly]

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

CROSS-LANGUAGE EXAMPLES

StruktLocus enables hybrid utterances combining elements from different languages and symbolic systems:

1. English-Chinese-Emoji mix

[1:我] [2:←] [3:give] [4:→] [5:📚] [6:tomorrow] // I will give book tomorrow (我 = "I" in Chinese)

2. English-Arabic-Mathematical construct

[1:كتاب] [2:I] [3:read] [4:∩] [5:∞] [6:evening] // I read book (كتاب) infinitely (∞) in evening (∩ = time intersection)

3. Japanese-English abstraction

[1:時間] [2:↑] [3:flows] [4:→] [5:future] [6:always] // Time (時間) flows to future always

4. Fully symbolic phrase

[1:■] [2:←] [3:⚡] [4:→] [5:●] [6:⌛] // Square transmits energy to circle in time

Contains no words yet preserves meaning through positions.

5. Scientific hybrid (Latin + formulas)

[1:E=mc²] [2:si] [3:⇒] [4:ergo] [5:ΔE] [6:QED] // If E=mc², therefore energy change, QED

Key features of mixed constructs:

Semantic compatibility — Elements from different languages occupy correct positional slots
Automatic decomposition — Meaning extracted from structure, not element language
Cultural neutrality — Combinations create no value conflicts

COMPARISON WITH OTHER LANGUAGES

Criterion	Natural Languages	Constructed Languages	StruktLocus
Unambiguity	Low (polysemy)	Medium (simplified grammar)	Absolute (meaning = position)
Cultural neutrality	Language-dependent	Limited (Eurocentrism)	Complete independence
Learning difficulty	High (vocabulary + grammar)	Medium (regular grammar)	Low (structure only)
Flexibility	Very high	High	Structurally limited
Machine processing	Complex (NLP required)	Relatively complex	Trivial (structural parsing)

CURRENT STATUS AND PROSPECTS

StruktLocus exists at the intersection of:

Linguistics — As an experiment in pure structural language creation
Artificial Intelligence — As ideal language for machine processing
Cognitive Science — As tool for thought investigation
Philosophy — As attempt to create universal semantic framework

CURRENT LIMITATIONS

Experimental status — Not yet fully tested in real communication
Cognitive load — Need to memorize positional roles may hinder rapid adoption
Limited expressiveness — Difficulty conveying subtle emotions and poetic imagery
Lack of infrastructure — No dictionaries, learning programs, or speaker community
Scaling challenges — Unclear performance in complex multi-level discourse

ACTUAL STATUS

Currently StruktLocus exists as:

Theoretical model — Conceptually complete but untested in practice
Linguistic prototype — Working system for basic statements
Experimental project — Tool for studying structural semantics

"Language of the future — where structure matters more than lexicon, and meaning is purer than words"

PHILOSOPHICAL MANIFESTO

1. The Crisis of Natural Languages

2. Principle of Topological Determinism

3. Absolute Structural Universalism

4. Cognitive Advantages

CORE GRAMMAR

Structural Quantum (SQ)

SQ Examples:

Position Filling Rules

SEMANTIC PROTOTYPE SYSTEM

1. PHYSICAL ACTIONS

Examples:

Grammatical Features:

2. MENTAL PROCESSES

Examples:

Grammatical Features:

3. SOCIAL INTERACTIONS

Examples:

Grammatical Features:

4. ABSTRACT RELATIONS

Examples:

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

🔹 Cross-Cultural Communication

🔹 Artificial Intelligence

🔹 Cognitive Research

🔹 Education

CROSS-LANGUAGE EXAMPLES

1. English-Chinese-Emoji mix

2. English-Arabic-Mathematical construct

3. Japanese-English abstraction

4. Fully symbolic phrase

5. Scientific hybrid (Latin + formulas)

Key features of mixed constructs:

COMPARISON WITH OTHER LANGUAGES

CURRENT STATUS AND PROSPECTS

CURRENT LIMITATIONS

ACTUAL STATUS