Re: my proposals for a philosophical language

On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 06:25:45PM +0100, Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Joseph Fatula wrote:
>
> JF> p t k
> JF> m n
> JF> f s h
> JF> ch
> JF> w l y
> JF> a i u
> JF> ai au
> Jf> ia iu
> JF> ua ui
>
> "y" an "i" sound similar
I believe he's talking about the *semivowel* "y", not the vowel "y" in
Ygyde.

But it is also true that some people may have trouble pronouncing
semivowels or diphthongs. I know a few languages where "ya" would be
pronounced as [ia] or [i.a] instead.

[snip]
> The root words must be made in such a way that
> it is clear where is the beginning and the end
> of each root word.
Why?

> Mittus (consonant cluster)  is difficult to pronounce. Some consonant
> clusters may be acceptable, for example: ms, sl, ks...
I'd say, avoid consonant clusters at all costs. Unless you make the
language such that inserting epithentic vowels between consonants won't
cause ambiguities (e.g., someone having trouble pronouncing /str/ could
say [s@t@r@] instead, as long as the schwa's don't lead to ambiguity with
another word).

> The most important decision is how many root words you need.
I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind this. I can see a reason
behind limiting the number of root words used in common, everyday
conversations (learn a small number of roots and you'll understand most of
what people say). But putting an upper limit on root words in the entire
language seems to me something that will only hamper the language's
development and ultimately, acceptance. People who have mastered the
basics will say, "why can't I coin new roots? It's too repetitive to keep
using these long words!"

> Your critical comments about Ygyde indicate that you need many more than
> 180, perhaps thousands.
I don't see a problem with that. I think you're underestimating the
ability of people to learn. Of course, I'm not saying that you should
deliberately introduce truckloads of root words; but babies learn English
just as easily as they learn any other language, most of which have a LOT
of root words (definitely way more than 180), plus all sorts of
exceptions, odd rules, arbitrary conventions, etc..

I think you might be over-reacting to the common misconception people
have, that language X is "difficult" because it has so many weird rules,
so many weird words, and so many exceptions. Actually, they forget (or are
not aware) that their own native language has just as much "weirdness" as
language X. The reason they find it hard is because they grew up in a
culture in which their native language fits in very well. "Weird" rules
aren't deliberately introduced into a language; they are the result of
cultural perceptions and conventions. Because of this, a person growing up
in that culture finds these "weird" rules quite natural, but when
confronted with language X, which has a different culture, they find it
awkward and difficult.

Given this, one thing you might want to consider for Ygyde is to actually
give it a cultural context that will dictate (or at least influence) some
of the linguistic decisions in the language itself. People learn things
much easier if there is a cultural context for it---once they pick up the
culture, all the "oddities" and idioms fall into place quite easily.

To give a concrete example, consider why Perl programmers like it so much,
even thoguh it is full of odd rules, strange exceptions, and other things
that the "perfect programming language" buffs criticize it for. I'm one of
the Perl fans, so I'm speaking from my own experience: I like Perl because
it *makes sense* -- in its own Perl-culture sorta way. At first I also
found Perl awkward and difficult; but after I picked up the Perl
philosophy, all those strange little things suddenly made sense, and they
fell into place rather neatly. It's actually *fun* to program in Perl. The
idioms fit very well into an internal consistency which you may call the
"Perl culture". To an outsider, Perl is incomprehensible gibberish --
that's the same as somebody calling language X "difficult". It's difficult
not because it's actually difficult, but because the person doesn't
understand the culture behind it.

So back to languages... I'm not saying you have to invent an entire
culture for Ygyde -- but just an underlying philosophy, or a motto, or
something, that is reflected in the more difficult parts of the language.
Then you don't *need* artificial restrictions like the number of root
words, etc.. Languages do, and *will*, change. Even artificial languages
will change -- people always adapt language to their own cultural context.
You cannot control a language by enforcing grammatical or lexical rules.
just look at how futile the efforts of language reformers are. In spite of
efforts to "fix" so-called incorrect pronunciation of English (esp. in
places where English is not a native language), Malay, etc., people still
continue to "mispronounce" them. You can reform the language of one
generation, but the children will inevitably change it to their own
tastes, and there's nothing you can do to stop them. But you *can* guide a
language with an underlying philosophy, or motto, which people can pick up
very quickly while learning the language.

> By the way, I do not mind criticism -- it is normal part of any
> meaningful conversation.
You seem to have grown up in a highly competitive atmosphere. So take my
advice: relax, and cool down. This list is not a place for linguistic
competitions. (At least, not the hostile kind.)  We're not interested in
competing for who's the "best" and who's "inferior" or any of that. But we
*are* interested in the exchange of ideas, and in cooperative discussions.


T

--
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Use your hands...

Reply