Re: relative weirdness (was Re: signal and noise ...)

Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...> wrote:

> > [Wittgenstein's "private language" argument; my brother (ab)using
     it to criticize conlanging]
>
> Since a Relay by definition involves at least partially teaching someone
> else your "private language", how can it be any more meaningless that other
> invented forms of communication (eg morse code or flag signals)?
The point is that my brother had misunderstood Wittgenstein's argument,
and conlangs aren't the kind of "private languages" W. deemed
impossible.
The fact that translation relays work and produce no larger semantic
drifts than similar experiments with natlangs would, proves that
conlangs
are perfectly workable and Wittgenstein's argument doesn't apply to
them.

What W. meant with "private languages" was apparently something
very different than conlangs as they are discussed here.
(Don't ask me what it is, as I my understanding of the matter is far
too limited to explain.)  A conlang is not a "private language" in
W.'s sense, as it could be learned by others, and it doesn't really
matter whether the grammar and semantics of a language are arrived at
by a societal consensus (as with natlangs), or designed by a single
individual or a small group (as with conlangs).  Hundreds of thousands
of Esperantists are certainly not doing something that's impossible!

See also Thomas R. Wier's post on the subject "Wittgenstein on
conlanging..."
and my reply on it.

Jörg.