Re: Four things: Was: Comparison of philosophical languages

Sally:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@...>
>
> > I refer the Right Honourable Lady to the answer given by my
> > learned colleague the member for Manhattan
>
> Many thanks, my other learned colleague.  I may still have some questions
>
> > I find the idea of a language without cultural bias very hard to
> > comprehend and not desirable. My ideal conlang would be strongly
> > biased towards my own culture
>
> Same for mine, actually.  I was speaking, though, for philosophical
> languages, which I had perhaps naively assumed were designed to be
> universal languages
I think that's partly because post-Enlightenment culture thinks of
its values as universal. (As do I, which is why I see so-called
American cultural imperialism as nothing of the sort, but rather
as motivated by a belief in a particular subset of universal
ethicopolitical principles.)

> > > I get the impression from And, who keeps invoking my description of the
> > > poor man's project as the "usual objections," :)  that he thinks I'm
> > > dismissing it.  I have issues, that's all, about its efficacy
> >
> > Fair enough. My interpellation was just a move to make sure that your
> > valid objections didn't lead to the inference of outright dismissibility
>
> I don't dismiss any language project, And.
I do. For example, I really can't think of any reason not to dismiss
yet another halfbaked euroclone IAL invented and proselytized by someone
who doesn't realize that several thousand people have already done the
exact same thing.

> I have preferences, though, as
> do you.  I don't yet particularly LIKE the language in question that has
> been the subject of so much debate and intemperate outburst, lately, or its
> (to me) awkward and limited form of building words--anymore than I expect
> everyone to like MY invented language.  At times, *I* don't like it so
> much, and wish I had invented, say, Ebisedian. :)  But it's so much a part
> of me that I can no more divorce it than if it were my own child growing
> up.  To me it is beautiful and rare.  CONLANG, however, has a humbling
> element to it, as I found out five years ago when I joined, and saw all
> the other rare things that were being done here.
It never struck me that you ever lacked humility, and indeed the many
decades of love lavished on bringing Teonaht to its present highly
elaborated and distinctive state would, I would have thought, have
become an even greater source of pride once you discovered that such
languages are very far from two a penny.

> > > I'm not saying that natural languages are not without their cultural
> biases
> > > Far from it.  But a perfect language (an impossibility), and especially
> a
> > > universal one, should strive to correct those faults, at least in part
> > > All naming, all language, will reflect an ethnic vantage point.  Not to
> > > know that seems fatal to claims of perfection or universality
> >
> > I agree about the impossibility of universality. But, as you know, I
> > don't agree about perfection. But maybe we understand perfection
> > differently. As I see it, it is like when we choose a spouse. It
> > seems to me entirely sane for you to believe that your husband
> > is the perfect man,
>
> Oh, he isn't that, And!  <G>  But I sure do love him!  Nor am I perfect,
> but he keeps coming home
>
> > and to have elected him from the millions of
> > other eligible men because of that judgement
>
> I wish that had been the case!! <G>  Ay me!
>
> > He's probably not
> > the perfect spouse for me, but that's neither here nor there,
>
> It certainly IS here or there.  That's exactly the point.  And you and I do
> agree on this definition of "perfect," I think.  What I don't do is go
> around and say I have the perfect husband, and everybody should try him!
> He's the funniest, and the easiest, and the best in bed, and the moment you
> see him you'll want to have a nice swinging party with him and me.
Perhaps. Though, failing that, I was kind of hoping you could introduce
me to Thirteen....

#> Zero is white, neuter, and a big fat nothing.  One is black, and he
#> faces to the left towards zero, without seeing it.  He's solitary,
#> and cares for no one.  Two is light blue, and kneeling.  She is a nun,
#> deep in her prayers.  Three is a blousy, talkative, yellow lady who is
#> shouting over Two's bent shoulder at One.  Four is purple, dapper,
#> pointy nosed, mysterious, and is looking at Three.  Five has two faces.
#> He/She is ambisexual: if she is facing towards Six, then she's saying
#> something sarcastic, her round cheek coming up and pushing her eyes up
#> in a malicious smile.  If Five is facing Four, than he is angry at him,
#> his mouth dropping down to denounce him, his hair flying straight back
#> from him.  Six is deep-red and submissive, bowing her shoulders away
#> from Five's harangue.  Seven is magenta, magnificent and confident.
#> She faces Five defiantly.  Eight is a curvacious woman dressed in pale
#> yellow.  She faces us squarely, elbows akimbo.  Nine is a gangster,
#> dressed in a green suit, bowing unctiously towards Eight who ignores him
#> Ten is a businessman dressed in tan and carrying a briefcase, walking
#> steadily towards us.  Eleven is on a ledge, down from Ten.  She is a young
#> girl dressed in grey, but quietly mysterious.  Twelve shares the ledge
#> with her, and is a young boy, combining the colors of Three, Four, and
#> Six in a patchwork cloak.  Thirteen is down on in a valley, looking up
#> at Eleven and Twelve and their innocence.  She is a smoker, a fucker,
#> and a trouble-maker, and she's gold.

--And.

Reply