> To me, the idea of allowing a speaker (and one’s listener) to express (and
> hear) a whole complex scene’s worth of imagery, or flow of ideas, or an
> abstract synergistic amalgamation of thoughts to be expressed in a single
> word or short phrase, allows that idea to be subjectively more salient and
> personally meaningful than any paraphrase.


> Based on the above, one might argue that the single Ithkuil word I listed
> earlier spoken by the football announcer would render the whole scene of
> the football player’s quick-footed but stumbling run to the goal line to be
> seen by the Ithkuil-speaking audience as a beautiful kind of dance
> performed against the odds, a synergistic whole encompassed by a single
> word, as opposed to a simple long-winded discription of a football play
> when translated into English.  In this respect, the Ithkuil word might be
> described as “poetic.”

If I understand you correctly, you view Ithkuil as "poetic" because of its
elegant and concise way of reducing complex phenomena to single words/short
phrases.  You give the example of the Ithkuil football announcer, and that
demonstrates your point nicely (but how are they going to fill all those
airwaves if they can speak a whole paragraph in a word :-)).

However, it occurs to me that your definition of "poetic" and the poetic
appeal of the single utterance encompassing a complicated scene can only
exist when Ithkuil is contrasted to other languages.  If we posit a
community of native Ithkuil speakers (who can use the language to its
fullest extent), the football commentary would not be poetic at all.  It
would be business as usual.  So I wonder:  what would a *native Ithkuil
speaker* consider poetry?  Or "poetic?"

Having followed this thread, I understand that you doubt such a speaker
community could exist.  But I am still interested to hear your thoughts on
the matter!