Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 > food" > 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 > idiosyncrasies.
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 language. 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. Television,
> Internet, fast food chains, and globalization may prevent > idiosyncrasies. >
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. Christophe. Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.


Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>
H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...>
Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...>