Re: my proposals for a philosophical language

Muke Tever wrote:
MT> Actually "god" as a root (in English generally
MT> from Gk "theo-" or L "dei-") is pretty common--forming,
MT> say, apotheosis, deity, theology, deism, atheism,
MT> theocracy, mono-/polytheism...

Good point.

MT> "Religious" as a root seems ... rather less strictly
MT> useful than, 'god', say, or 'sacred/holy', especially
MT> as belief in god(s) and the holding of things as
MT> sacred is probably more central than religiousness...

I define religion as "religious organization."
It sounds better than "god organization."

A few more examples:
agnostic = onalipy = "noun religious no meaning person"
angel = ypinaja = "noun attractive religious craftsman"
atheist = ycunapy = "noun opposite religious person"
bishop = ynatu = "noun religious manager"
blasphemy = yjynace = "noun dirty religious communication"
to bless = unamoce = "verb religious caring communication"
cardinal = ytynatu = "noun high religious manager"
church, synagogue, temple, mandir, etc. = ynazo = "noun religious building"
circumcision = ynacici = "noun religious sexual manipulation"
creationism = ynane = "noun religious science"
cross = ynako = "noun religious shape"
god = ynapo = "noun religious parent"
heretic = ynynaco = "noun false religious expert"
miracle, magic = ynacu = "noun religious technology"
pope = ytenatu = "noun top religious manager"
schism = ynamy = "noun religious separation"

Calling bishop "god manager" sounds strange to me.
Schism is very hard to define using "god" root word.

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.

 ========================================================================

Tim May wrote:

TM> Fortunately it's not all that difficult to design
TM> a morphology which is unambiguous as to morpheme
TM> boundaries.  But not the way you're doing it.
TM> Your basic problem is that you've restricted yourself
TM> to CV and CVV roots.  Your reasons for doing so are
TM> individually sound, but collectively they've led you
TM> to an essentially unworkable solution.
TM> That is _not_ enough roots...

TM> _ambu_ (Japanese, "saddle")

TM> An intervocalic prenasalized stop is a pretty
TM> common cluster.

TM> Now, if you were to allow such clusters, you could
TM> put them between the vowels of morpheme with more
TM> than one syllable.  On encountering the cluster,
TM> you know that the morpheme has another syllable to go.

Yes. I was thinking about putting m, n and l between
vowels and consonants: bla, bam, ban...
"Bla" can be generalized as Xla, where X is almost
any consonant. Xla works pretty well, but "bam" and "ban"
do not work, because they cannot be mixed with "na"
and "ma" syllables. For example, "banna" is no good.

Replies