Print

Print


The planning, for starters. In order for it to be naturalistic, the language would simply have to haphazardly be philosophical in the way you’re defining the term. Making it an auxlang is no trick: The entire world has to speak it. I think that’s the only qualification for an auxlang, yeah? Ideally it should be regular, easy to learn, etc., but as we’ve seen with auxlangs in the past, those qualifications are rarely true across the board for any auxiliary language. The ubiquitous use by a large group of people—whether real or planned—is the only thing that ties them together.

So the two things that are at odds are: (a) a philosophical language is planned according to a particular philosophy; and (b) natural languages are never planned. Those two things are irreconcilable in my estimation.

David Peterson
LCS Member Since 2007
[log in to unmask]
www.conlang.org

> On Feb 6, 2015, at 3:11 PM, J S Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 15:00:08 -0800, David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> I think it is literally impossible to create a naturalistic philosophical auxlang. They’re a contradiction in terms.
> 
> It depends on how the terms are defined. Just because "B" isn't "A" doesn't mean their referents can't overlap. I'm more interested in the characteristics behind the terms than just the labels. Which _parts_ are contradictory?
> 
> Jeff
> 
>> David Peterson
>> LCS Member Since 2007
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.conlang.org
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2015, at 2:58 PM, J S Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So I'd like to engineer a naturalistic philosophical auxlang. But this presents some difficult choices. For example, are scalar opposites, like "hot" and "cold" derived from a common root (as in Ithkuil) or are they suppletive (as in English)? Another one: should the semantics of noun-noun compounds be made explicit, or are compounds such as "toothpaste", "raincoat", and "pepper stone" allowed? What other such choices can you think of?
>>> 
>>> Jeff