Re: Geometry in natlangs (Was: Re: Most developed conlang)

On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 02:17:20PM -0700, John Crowe wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   <<
>   I doubt our hypothetical 4D beings would be too concerned with
>   reciting Schläfli symbols for polychora (4-polytopes), much as *we*
>   aren't too concerned with reciting Schläfli symbols for 3D polyhedra
>   in our everyday life.
> >>
>
>   Actually, our current system of communicating 3D figures is somewhat
>   of  an attempt at a semiconsistent method. If all they knew were
>   Schläfli  symbols, they'd be perfectly fine with them. What
>   advantage does  "square" have over "regular 4-gon"? :)
The fact that "square" is one syllable versus five? :-) But my point was
that mathematically regular figures are less likely to be referred to in
everyday communication than the shapes of common objects of practical
utility (boxes for storage---probably not a regular 4-cube, perhaps
ellipsoidal bowls, etc.).


--T