Print

Print


On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 17:25:59 -0800, Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>As a general comment, the construction of philosophical languages has had a
>long history, at least in Europe. The inventors of those languages believed
>that they were creating languages which, through grammar or lexicon or
>both, reflected the underlying ontological basis of reality, which some of
>the inventors believed mirrored the divine structure of the universe, for
>which Eden was a metaphor (or an actual historical fact).

I don't think I'll be using any theistic kind of philosophy.

>However...  close
>reading of these languages shows that, in fact, the ontological taxonomy
>that was proposed was an internalization of the grammar of the language(s)
>known by the inventors. That is, there wasn't anything universal about the
>structure of the philosophical language, rather it was a "semantic relex"
>of SAE. So, Jeff, when you mention a "philosophical auxlang", you are
>treading on thin ice, since it implies that the philosophical basis for
>your language has, or will have, some sort of universal, exo-cultural or
>exo-linguistic foundation. Beware. It is extremely difficult to even think
>about ontology without falling back into the well-worn grooves of our own
>linguistic thought patterns.

It's even more difficult for a *human* language to be *universal*, so I'm not going to aim for that. The most one can hope for is strange and unnatural, which are outside the scope of an ENPA. Anyway, I might have some tricks up my sleeve.

Jeff

>On the other hand, as an artistic or experimental project, go for it.
>
>("semantic relex" - should this be termed a "resemination"?)
>
>Jeffrey
>
>
>Jeffrey.
>
>On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:53 PM, J S Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 18:56:06 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hallo conlangers!
>> >
>> >On 07.02.2015 15:28, R A Brown wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I'll just de-lurk for a moment and will probably go back
>> >> into lurk mode afterwards    ;)
>>
>> I'll reply to both here.
>>
>> >> On 06/02/2015 23:41, J S Jones wrote:
>> >> [snip]
>> >>>
>> >>> I also disagree with your auxlang qualification. Not
>> >>> everybody has to speak it, just 2 people who (probably)
>> >>> don't have another language in common.
>> >>
>> >> If that is your definition of auxlang then IMHO you may as
>> >> well drop the auxlang criterion.   If two people wish to
>> >> communicate in language X, they will do so.  All sorts of
>> >> languages both natural and constructed have been used that
>> >> way.  It tells us nothing except that it's a language   ;)
>>
>> My point was just that it doesn't have to be *universal* to be an auxlang.
>>
>> >Indeed not.  An auxlang, as I understand it, is a language proposed for
>> >usage as a language for communication between people of different native
>> >languages.  Such proposals often involve conlangs, but not always.
>>
>> And the conlang, if and when, _would_ be proposed for such. But not here.
>>
>> >> =======================================================
>> >>
>> >> On 06/02/2015 23:50, David Peterson wrote:
>> >>> The auxlang part is the easy part: It’s the philosophical
>> >>> aspect of it that’s going to be difficult.
>> >>
>> >> Yes.  A philosophical language is grounded on a philosophy.
>> >>  What is the philosophy that Jeff intends to underlie the
>> >> language.  Surely it is this philosophic model that will
>> >> answer the question raised by Jeff in his original mail.
>> >>
>> >> Babm [bɔˈɑːbɔmu] is a philosophical language of the last
>> >> century.  It author, Fuishiki Okamoto, claims that "[a]t he
>> >> age of forty, it was possible for [him] to gain assurance of
>> >> what truth is."  He subsequently published his thoughts in
>> >> English in two volumes under the title "New Philosophy for
>> >> the People."
>> >>
>> >> So what is the philosophy underlying the language?
>>
>> Fair question. But the project hasn't really started yet (unless I decide
>> Jan24 is an ENPA) and the philosophy isn't defined, except that I want to
>> avoid the conventional pigeonholes. Right now I'm just asking questions and
>> looking at various things, such as Ithkuil.
>>
>> >The term "philosophical language" is often used in the sense of a
>> >conlang whose lexicon is built according to a taxonomy of ideas, as was
>> >popular in the 17th century.  The "_deba_ 'horse', _debe_ 'mule', _debi_
>> >'donkey'" kind of thing.  But a conlang can be built on other kinds of
>> >philosophical principles.
>>
>> Yes, I don't expect to use the horse/mule/donkey approach.
>>
>> >But it upon Jeff to tell us in which way his project is meant to be
>> >"philosophical".
>> >
>> >>> And, no, no conlang can be *natural*, by definition.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed.
>> >>
>> >>> *Naturalistic* is a different thing. Then the goal is to
>> >>>  make the language look as if it arose naturally with no
>> >>>  planning.
>> >>
>> >> Quite - and many people, e.g. JRR Tolkien, give their
>> >> language(s) a fictional diachronic development.
>> >
>> >Yep.  This is IMHO the best way of coming up with a naturalistic conlang.
>>
>> I like diachronics. It's not just for artlangs anymore.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >>> There’s never any reason not to try an experiment,
>> >>
>> >> Absolutely.  I spent years on the 'briefscript' project
>> >> before abandoning it:
>> >> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Briefscript/Index.html
>> >>
>> >> The Aims and Objectives I set myself in the latest version
>> >> of the project were:
>> >> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Briefscript/ObjAndDesign.html
>> >>
>> >> But I had to make compromises and compromises meant that
>> >> some design principals were not being properly achieved.
>>
>> This might be just picky, but I think one has to work in terms of goals
>> and requirements rather than principles. A goal is something one would like
>> to achieve while a requirement is something that has to be achieved. It's
>> only when the _requirements_ conflict that the project is in trouble. But
>> perhaps you did this -- I should reread the Briefscript pages.
>>
>> >> Several years before I abandoned the project one conlonger
>> >> had written to me that he wished I would realize my aims
>> >> were incompatible.  Well, we live and learn   ;)
>> >
>> >Sure.  But you (and others) certainly learned something from it, and the
>> >discussions we had here about the project were very interesting and
>> >insightful.  It surely wasn't an utter waste of time and effort!
>>
>> I'll agree with you (Joerg) here.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> >--
>> >... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
>> >http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
>> >"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
>>