Re: Comparison of philosophical languages

On Monday 20 January 2003 08:26 am, Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Very interesting post! I agree that a rigid taxonomical
> language does not make sense. 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. 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"
> cauliflower = ocibiby = "noun sexual anatomical... food"
> corn = otybiby = "noun high anatomical... food"
> garlic = olubiby = "noun smelly anatomical... food"
> lettuce = okubiby = "noun lightweight anatomical... food"
> onion = ojibiby = "noun optical anatomical... food"
> parsley = olibiby = "noun medical anatomical... food"
> potato = opebiby = "noun warm anatomical... food"
        How is obiby, odibiby, ocibiby, otybiby, olubiby, et al., any better than
elevela, elevale, elevali, elevalo, and elevalily?
        You say that "a rigid taxonomical language does not make sense" yet that is
precisely what Ygyde has. Look at it: "noun, blah, blah, food." It's rigid.
It's taxonomical. It's anathema! (Sorry, couldn't resist! ;)
        I'm going to regret asking, but what makes something like cauliflower "sexual
anatomical"?
        I'm sorry, but Ygyde is no more promising than say, Ro. You notice how many
people are queueing up to learn Ro? Why do suppose that is? Perhaps it's
because Ro (and languages like it) ARE COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO HOW HUMAN
BEINGS LEARN AND USE LANGAUGES. We need random words, not only for
comprehension, but memory. A taxonomical language does not reduce the memory
load. Take, for instance, "ojibiby." "Noun optical anatomical... food." Why
couldn't that mean "carrot"? (After all, the old wives' tale here is that
carrots are good for the eyes.) So when I learn that "ojibiby" means "onion,"
I also have to remember that it doesn't mean "carrot." In other words, its
taxonomy doesn't reduce the memory--I still have to remember what Ygyde's
arbitrary taxonomy refers to, and what it excludes.

> Ygyde's grammar does not say that names of vegetables
> must sound similar, but it implies that the last
> syllable of a food name must be "by" which means food.
        Why? For instance, a Jerusalem artichoke is a vegetable, but I wouldn't
consider it "food." Sure, some people may eat it, but then dogs eat their own
scat. :)

> I did not use dictionaries when I was learning
> my mother tongue.
        Unfortunately, Ygyde is no one's mother tongue; no mothers to teach it mean
that it needs dictionaries.

> Ygyde's grammar imposes some standards that cannot
> be abolished.
        Language Rule 1: All living languages change. Period. Grammatical standards
cannot oppose change. In fact, grammatical "standards" often lead the charge
to change.
        Just out of curiousity, how is Ygde different than Ro? True, I haven't been
following the thread terribly closely, but on cursory examination, the two
seem more similar than different.
        :Peter