Re: Tong-cho-la, a philosophical language

Andrew Nowicki <andrew@...> wrote:

<<<
I doubt that the root word "groove" would be used as often
as the "cavity" root word. Words "orbit" and "lane" have
little in common with the word "groove".
>>>
At least one real, daily spoken natlang connects them together. Why discuss
whether a natural language is wrong or right to name a cat a "cat" and
according to what standard? As to the frequency of the use of a root, this
completely depends on the way one makes one's own vocabulary. Philosophical
auxlangers try and describe the real world and our imaginary as if it could
be decomposed into smaller and smaller parts, molecules and atoms. But
languages and human intelligence work through analogy as much as through
analysis. Therefore, a language could use "groove" in the words "career",
"follow", "launchpad", "stubborn", in the same way that we use "leg" in
"chairleg" and "neck" in "bottleneck" despite geometry, the fact that chairs
never use crutches and bottles never drink wine. :-)

<<<
Ygyde's roots
"ni" = path, trajectory, and "ju" = road are more apt.
>>>
Definitely! "More apt" according to you and your language and depending on
which meanings of "groove" you're thinking of, that is: for a sliding door,
on a dorian column, in a record, etc. I feel like we're arguing here whether
a snail is more a gasteropod or a French delicacy. :-)))
<<<

Please read more about Ygyde before you criticise it.
Ygyde description: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyde.htm
Ygyde dictionary: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyded.htm
>>>
I don't "criticize". I only compare respective merits of the information you
give about this language and although I may sometime move like an elephant
in a china I still think I behave.(Note that I use "china" here as
"earthenware", not as "country" :-))). Thanks for the links anyway.

<<<
Natlangs were made to describe demons and animals. When they
describe modern world they sound like "life insurance salesman".
>>>
THIS is definitely a nice piece of criticism! :-)))
I feel reversely that natlangs were not made by bureaucratic control freaks
trying to dissect the whole world into square data table entries. Natural
languages freely adjust and work everyday inside and between people's minds
in our modern world. That's why I would read more about natlangs before
criticizing them :-)
This being said, I do enjoy the idea of encyclopedic philosophical languages
from a conlanger's viewpoint. I am happy that they exist and that some were
the works of famous philosophers.

Mathias

Reply