pet and i were discussing (more like verbally shitposting really) an idea for a company to truly solve the idea of ambiguity

lojban doesn't do that, even though it claims to, because you can still say shit like "how many holes does a straw have", which should be an objective fact, and still get different answers

in order to create a truly unambiguous language you would need to start from the simplest grammar possible, and definite it rigidly and thoroughly in e.g. english. you would then use that tiny grammar to build a slightly more complex grammar, and so on, until eventually you can introduce words like "straw" and "hole", and each one of those words would need a hugely detailed and specific flowchart on what makes that thing a thing (something like ALL chairs MUST HAVE 3-4 legs AND a base of at least 15cm² etc etc)

this language would have, several problems

\1. the grammar would be several thousands of pages of dense, nigh incomprehensible technicalities and symbols
\2. anything you missed in your definition is a permanent flaw of the language - if the zeitgeist of what a "chair" is changes to include chairs with a 14cm² base, everyone who speaks your language in that way is speaking it wrong in the same way someone saying "philosophy is chair" is wrong in english - not just grammatically wrong but factually, objectively, by definition wrong
\3. one slip up on any of the early "protozoic" grammar stages would bring the whole thing crashing down - oops turns out you forgot to specify that adjectives must be unique, now people can say "the red red red chair" in your supposedly unambiguous language
\4. poetry would be impossible because if someone says "your smile is like a sunrise" because a smile and a sunrise are nothing alike in definition - only in experience. a smile does not involve a giant star, does not emit light, does not happen predictably periodically, etc, therefore your poetry is an incorrect sentence
\5. similar to 2 - whoever creates the language defines literally everything. if you have just ONE bad take, your language is permanently associated with it, that take is woven into the fabric of speech, and it is inseperable from the whole thing. it'd be like saying to telling someone to separate the art from the artist, except the artist signs every work with "signed by me - P.S. i hate women and by consuming my work you are at the very least implicit in this"

there are many many more reasons why this would be terrible of course, and i'm planning to make a blog post about this soonish