Re: What is it we are saying in our languages?

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Quijada" <jq_ithkuil@...>

> Sally Caves wrote:
>>In other words, what are we saying that is unique in our languages,
>>and how do our languages help us *say* something that the world can hear--
>>or deem unique?
>>
>>How is conlanging itself a kind of message about language?
>
>>=========================================================================
> It has always been my intention to write philosophical poetry in Ithkuil,
> i.e., a poem or poems expressing a philosiphical view.  Because Ithkuil's
> raisons d'etre include (1) semantic exactitude and precision, (2) overt
> expression of actual cognition than natlangs permit, and (3)
> morpho-phonological conciseness, I believe it to be an excellent vehicle
> for
> expressing "heavy" philosophical thoughts and musings in a way that would
> hinder the speaker/writer from trying to manipulate language
> metaphorically
> the way most philosophy is written.
Or most political progaganda. Orwell famously commenting on this.  Or
historical commentary.

  (Lakoff and Johnson spend the last part
> of their 1999 opus "Philosophy in the Flesh" deconstructing various
> philosopher's writings based on the metaphors they use to convey their
> ideas).
I've heard of this, will have to check it out at last!

The result being a more "pure" (pardon the metaphor!) expression of
> philosophical thought that can be judged on its face more objectively than
> most philosophical writings.  (Indeed, of all the comments and adulatory
> statements I've read about Ithkuil from various blogs, bulletin boards,
> etc.
> in the last two and a half years, the entry that has meant the most to me
> was a blog entry by someone posting a derogatory entry about the writings
> of
> some apparently postmodern philosopher named DeLeuze.  The blogger
> suggested
> more or less that if DeLeuze's work were translated into Ithkuil he'd be
> exposed for the philosophical charlatan the blogger believed him to be.)
LOL!  I've encountered Deleuze.  And Derrida, and other mid-20th century
French philosophers, much admired where I work.  I have Deleuze's _The Logic
of Sense_ ( Logique du sens), and I've read his introduction to Louis
Wolfson's _Le Schizo et les langues_ (now THAT'S a peculiar book!).  A lot
of defenders would say that we are at a disadvantage reading these
philosophers in translation, and that Derrida is much more persuasive in
French than he is in English to some who read both languages; others would
say that their "schtick" is to make puns and neologisms, and to deliberately
ambiguate what they think is too solidly accepted.  It's the raison d'etre
of "deconstruction."  What would Derrida be without "diffe'rance"? ;)  But I
agree in part with your blogger!  I know where he's coming from.

> At the same time, Ithkuil's incredibly flexible and concise
> morpho-phonology
> would allow philosophical thoughts to be conveyed in very unique sorts of
> words which would allow me to write such philosophical 'treatises' as
> poetry.  An example of such a word would be < ierwaqût' > "characteristic
> of
> a single component among the synergistic amalgamation of things."
Lovely word!  I do think despite what you say you should write some poetry.

> Alas, the creation of such writings will be all-consuming of my time, and
> given all the other more short-term items on my to-do list, I doubt I will
> be able to pursue this idea until I retire....
Yes, I know.  In fact, I'm even more to blame; the things I want to write in
Teonaht, to stretch my art and my language and my culture, inevitably come
out in English first because I'm too impatient.  Often, though, when I go
back to reconstruct it in Teonaht, the text changes.  And I will assay new
English translations.

> As for Sally's other question as to how conlanging might be itself a
> message
> about language, I feel the most profound answer is probably the
> simplest...Art.  Conlangers simply realize that language itself can be
> used
> as an artistic medium, i.e., a way of recreating the world in a personally
> idealized subjective fashion where the nature of the creation itself
> offers
> its own aesthetic and intellectual pleasure to enjoyed and subjective
> mysteries to be analyzed and dwelt upon.
Roman Jakobson: in poetry "words acquire a weight and value of their own
instead of referring indifferently to reality."

Sally
>