maikxlx wrote:
> I am struggling to find the words to adequately characterize this auxlang
> proposal. 

I know what you mean!

It appears, however, to a _pasigraphy_ like the 17th century 
auxlangs of such people as George Dalgarno ('Ars signorum', 
1661) and John Wilkins ('An Essay towards a Real Character 
and a Philosophical Language', 1668), except that whereas 
these two gentleman started from the viewpoint of 17th 
century Christian perspective, whereas Tienzen Gong is 
working, AIUI, from 21st century neo-Taoist perspective.

> The author's set of 240 root words, with which all other words in
> natural language are intended to be "encoded", seem more whimsically chosen
> than any similar set that I've seen in my life.  For example, there's a root
> word for "tiger head", but none for "tiger".  Also notable among the 240
> are:
> "waving scene of a grain field"
> "dead man's skull"
> "cutting meat off the bone"

Yep - I've always held that oligosynthetic languages must 
needs be cultural dependent.

That does not mean that I think they are pointless as 
conlangs - far from it (my own "experimental loglang" is 
trying to metamorphose itself into an oligosynthetic 
language). What I do not go along with is the claim of some 
closed _universal_ set of 'semantic primitives' which must 
serve as the basis of a global auxlang.

Tienzen Gong's selection of his 240 root words seems to me 
to be yet another confirm of this.

Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.