Re: Four things: Was: Comparison of philosophical languages

----- 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 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 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.  I think everyone here wants to think that
their work is not outrightly dismissed.  That's why the list doesn't
advocate.

> > 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.  Artlangs
and husbands (and I daresay engelangs and loglangs) are personal in this
respect.  My use of the word "perfect" was ironic, influenced by Eco's book
and some of the claims made recently.  No, not even a philosophical or
engelang will be "perfect" except to the inventor.  My gripes with some of
the advocacy that has been thrust at us lately--along with the graceless way
some of us have reacted to it (including me)--is mostly based on matters
of--hmmm.  Approach.  Assumption.  Terminology.  But we've visited this
issue already, and almost everybody, including myself, is sick of it.  I'm
not washing my hands, though, of philsophical languages, or engelangs,
because of it.   I merely want a newcomer to respect the awesome variation
of invention and the high degree erudition on this list.  Along with its FAQ
rules.  He will!

> [I intend this as
> a hypothetical and not intrusive example.]
Not at all! <G>

Now, to that engelang definition given us by the learned colleague of
Manhattan!

Sally Caves
scaves@frontiernet.net
Eskkoat ol ai sendran, rohsan nuehra celyil takrem bomai nakuo.
"My shadow follows me, putting strange, new roses into the world."

Replies