Re: Comparison of philosophical languages
|From:||Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>|
|Date:||Monday, January 20, 2003, 15:25|
En réponse à Andrew Nowicki <andrew@...>:
> Very interesting post! I agree that a rigid taxonomical
> language does not make sense.
*Any* taxonomical language (except in restricted areas like biology or
chemistry) doesn't make sense, whether rigid or not. That's just not how the
brains work out language.
Of all the languages that
> I know Ygyde is the most promising because it does not
> have a complicated taxonomy and it is perfectly suited
> for coining new compound words.
Please stop the Auxlang propaganda! You've been told already many times it is
*explicitely* forbidden on this list. You can discuss the system of Ygyde any
time you want, but stop with comments like "promising", "better", or whatever.
They are *NOT* welcome on this list, especially since they have already been
proven wrong by people here (you would have realised it if you hadn't listened
selectively to the replies you got).
At present Ygyde's
> names of vegetables are very similar:
> vegetable = obiby = "noun anatomical part of a multicellular plant
> carrot = odibiby = "noun long anatomical... food"
Which fits also leek, white radish, courgette, bananas (parts of plants aren't
they?), etc... The problem with your compounds is that their meaning is not
readily identifiable from their parts, which defeats somewhat the very purpose
of a philosophical language. At the end, the fact that they are compounds
doesn't help people know what they mean, so they have to learn them separately
anyway, and thus the people find themselves having to learn similar words for
similar meanings, one of the worst situation there is. One must wonder if the
language is even humanly possible to learn (the answer is actually already
known: no. Your language has all the flaws of philosophical languages, but none
of the few positive features they brought, like precision. It's a failure on
all counts and probably not a humanly learnable language).
> cauliflower = ocibiby = "noun sexual anatomical... food"
Now that's a strange one. Cauliflower doesn't look like anything having to do
with sex (or else you must have strange fantasies ;)) ).
> garlic = yluby = "noun smelly food"
Never grilled sardines, boil cabbage or gave food to a cat did you? ;)))
> onion = ojibuby = "noun optical sickness food"
So if I understand correctly anyone is allowed to define his/her own opaque
compounds? (yes, opaque. In all those compounds you presented, except for the
fact that they were nouns and had to do with food, nothing was clear enough to
explain their meaning. In this case, better scrap the idea of compounds
entirely, and come up with a language with arbitrary roots but a regular
grammar. Oh wait, there are plenty of those around already ;)) ). Best way to
have your language turned into a multitude of non-intercomprehensible dialects.
Kind of defeats the purpose of an International Language too.
> I did not use dictionaries when I was learning
> my mother tongue.
No, but at that time you had hardly anything else to do, and your brains took
all their capacities to learn language as good as possible. You must imagine
how difficult it must be, since it took you several years to achieve it
thoroughly. Moreover, you were literally immersed with the language you had to
learn, while it's not the case with other languages, and a fortiori with a
brand new IAL! And finally, your brains were malleable at that time. They are
not that much now (as seen in your insistance in refusing to understand that
this list is not for auxlang propaganda), and learning another language is a
difficult task, as has been proved for centuries.
And anyway, this argument is moot, as we are talking about Ygyde, which will
have to be taught first as a second language (unless you take over the world,
kidnap all babies from their parents, and put them in raising farms where they
get to hear only Ygyde. Even then, they will adapt the language to their
brains, and they will probably end up speaking something completely different
from what you expected ;)) ).
> Ygyde's grammar imposes some standards that cannot
> be abolished. If Ygyde becomes a mother tongue,
> idiosyncrasies are most likely in the names of
> flora, fauna, food, and dress.
It seems you have *no* understanding of semantics whatsoever.
Basic ideas and
> technical names have no reason to drift into
Technical names indeed. Basic ideas are the very *source* of idiosyncrasies in
any language! They are the *main* ones which are idiosyncratic and culture-
dependent! They will be the first ones to turn into idiosyncracies! Look at
natlangs everywhere! There is a *reason* why no natlang is a philosophical
If two different kinds of food are
> called "container food," we can distinguish them as
> "american container food" and "spanish container food."
> Or we can guess the meaning from the context.
Which defeats the purpose of a philosophical language again. Context is also
culture-dependent. "Depending on context" works only for people with the same
background, and even close backgrounds like different European countries are
far enough to provoke plenty of misunderstandings due to a different way to
take context (believe me, I have first experience in those things). In any
case, an IAL cannot rely on context to disambiguate meaning.
> Internet, fast food chains, and globalization may prevent
They have already proven to introduce their own!
I will shut up now. I have already spoken enough on such a subject. As I had
warned, this is *not* the place for advocating blindly an IAL. If you are not
ready to listen to our critics, you better leave, since it's no place for you.
Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.