Re: Comparison of philosophical languages

Andrew Nowicki <andrew@...> wrote:
>
> Philosophical languages are defined as conlangs which do not
> derive their root words from other languages.
No, that's an "a priori" language.

> They are my
> favorite international auxiliary languages because they are
> not hampered by the flaws of existing languages. A perfect
> language should be easy to pronounce, easy to understand,
> and easy to learn.
Dude, you really ought to read Umberto Eco's "The search for the perfect
language". I think it'd be a real eye-opener for you.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0631174656/qid=1042752190/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-8999657-6091037?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

K.

--
Ceci n'est pas une .sig.