Re: my proposals for a philosophical language

Which makes one wonder what to call a linguist.  ^_^  Or a translator, or
the guys who fix radios, or the multi-functional Communications Officer of
Star Trek fame (who is a linguist, translator, AND radio fixer!).

Some of your compound definitions make me laugh, I'm afraid, and more than a
few make no sense to me at all (noun religious shape = cross???)  So
basically the star of David, and dozens [hundreds] of other religiously
charged shapes are left out in the cold?  Please remember that at most about
a fifth of the planet is Christian, and that more than two billion people
live in just two countries where Christianity has virtually no influence,
yet religion and/or spirituality are a HUGE part of daily life (actually,
almost everyone manages to live in a country where Christianity has
virtually no influence, and I suspect that the majority still manage to have
religion or spirituality of some sort as a huge part of daily life.

Anyway, enough of my rantings.  I strongly suggest that you consider why,
precisely, so many things have proper names that are more or less
universally known (e.g., the word "Mormon" is translated only in the sense
that we modify it grammatically, so that, for example, the Russian Book of
Mormon is "Kniga Mormona")  There's absolutely no reason to delete words
that are easy to say, have a meaning that resonates OR that is distinct and
not shared by anything else (as an LDS church member I'm rather curious as
to whether "mormon" has a meaning outside of our context in other
languages).  It came from a personal name, just like America and Columbia
did.  I can see why it might be appropriate to come up with a new word for
"Unitarian Universalist" (which is confusing, as it doesn't mean what you'd
think it'd mean by breaking it down even in English, and is made up of
descriptive words already) or whatever, but there's no need to come up with
new words (especially short words) for anything in the proper name field.
Harvard, California, America, Mormon, etc., are clear-cut.  Why rename
Ireland when there are other noun-wet-green-north-countries (or whatever
you'd decide to use) that maybe don't have distinct names?  Are you going to
redefine "Sarah," "Richard," and "Peter," too (and if so, will you go for
their linguistic roots -- I'd be a noun-royal-girl, I suppose -- or will you
base them off of an example that may not be universal, like
noun-birthmarked-short-girl, which would apply to THIS Sarah but perhaps
none of the rest of us)?

Sarah Marie Parker-Allen
lloannna@surfside.net
http://lloannna.blogspot.com
http://www.geocities.com/lloannna.geo

"There are some things that it is better to begin than to refuse, even
though the end may be dark."
-- J.R.R. Tolkien

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU]On Behalf Of Andrew Nowicki
 My definition of angel does not sound right.
> Someone suggested "god messenger." I do not have
> "messenger" root word, but I could call him
> "communication expert" instead.
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by SURFSIDE INTERNET]

Replies