On 10/06/2016 20:25, And Rosta wrote:
> On 10 June 2016 at 17:38, R A Brown wrote:
>> What I did not understand is why the langue of, say,
>> Quenya or Sindarin may not also exist in the platonic
>> universe of ideas (assuming, for the sake of argument,
>>  the existence of such a world). Why, on the one hand
>> was it held that English, Swahili or Tamil are
>> languages and that their langue is implicit and exists
>>  in the platonic universe of ideas, but the langue of
>> Quenya does not?
> I would say that the langue of Quenya, as invented by
> JRRT, does exist in this platonic universe, but that it
> is not a full langue but rather comprises only the
> externals and not the inner workings.
> One may also suppose that there also exists in the
> platonic universe a full working langue of Quenya,
> unknown to any human, but known to the elves; but JRRT
> invented only the externals of this full working langue,
>  and not its innards.

_the_ platonic universe?

It is apparent that your notion of "platonic universe" is
rather different from mine.  But what do I know?  Plato was
one of my specialisms when I did my first degree so many,
many years ago.  But maybe even then I misunderstood the
Greek I was reading.  Or maybe senility has set in and I've
got things muddled.

>>> The term _platonic_ (small P) is here used in the
>>> sense of 'pertaining to the realm of ideas' rather
>>> than in the sense of 'pertaining to Plato' (or even
>>> to Plato's theory of Forms). (In the very unlikely
>>> event that you are unfamiliar with this sense of
>>> 'platonic', look up 'mathematical platonism' for an
>>> example of it;
>> I have looked it up; and what is the first thing I
>> find? "Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical
>> platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are
>> abstract mathematical objects *whose existence is
>> independent of us and our language, thought, and
>> practices*. Just as electrons and planets exist
>> independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just
>> as statements about electrons and planets are made true
>> or false by the objects with which they are concerned
>> and these objects' perfectly objective properties, so
>> are statements about numbers and sets. *Mathematical
>> truths are therefore discovered, not invented*."
>> Emphasis is mine. Plato would have agreed with this and
>> it is what I understand by Platonism.
> Exactly.
> I am guessing that your emphasis is intended to suggest
> that platonic things cannot be invented but only
> discovered. What we call 'invention' and 'authorship' is
>  a kind of discovery of platonic things.

The existence Forms ("Ideas"), according to Plato, "is
independent of us and our language, thought, and practices."
The above extract talks of them as being discovered, not
invented.  Plato actually talked of them as being recalled
or remembered, since the soul at one time knew them.

I should, perhaps, make it clear that although I found Plato
very interesting and, although I accept that there are
mathematical truths, I do not believe that Plato's universe
of Forms exists.


> Okay, but happily you have in your own reading confirmed
>  that, as I had expected, you understand 'platonic'
> without needing recourse to further discussion of
> realism.

I understand platonic to mean "of or pertaining to Plato."
But, as I have observed, your understanding of the term
differs from mine - and this IMO is unlikely to change.

On 11/06/2016 00:02, David Peterson wrote:
> If you’d say, And, that there is absolutely no possible
> way (at present) for a conlanger to create, whether
> consciously or unconsciously (i.e. satisfactorily), the
> inner workings of a language, meaning that conlangers
> are not inventing languages at all, I don’t think there’s
> any way of convincing you otherwise, so you should state
> that as your opinion, and leave it at that. I remain
> unconvinced, and will go so far as to say that there is
> no possible way you can convince me that a conlanger
> isn’t engaged in creating a language when conlanging.
> That’s my opinion, and I, for myself, will leave it at
> that.

I agree 100% with David.

It seems to me positions have been stated and are unlikely
to change.  I see no point in continuing the thread