Print

Print


>I am inventing a conlang that is only meant to be used in thought.
>Specifically, my thought.
...
>It is never meant to be spoken, or shared.
...
>Tell me if it serves its
>ultimate purpose, and if there are criticisms in that arena, you have helped
>me.

I understand and accept your sentiment.  But the above poses to me an
impossible question.  How can I possibly know what is necessary/sufficient
for you-alone to use in thought never to be spoken or shared.  It is not
certain that we use anything that can be called a "language" for large portions
of our "thought never to be spoken or shared".  Sighted people are prone to
thinking visually as well as linguistically.  To what extent those pictures
are even discussible is unclear.  How can I know what is adequate for
your thinking without knowing how you think at present or how you could think.

(I admit that the phenomenon of thinking in a different language remains
beyond my understanding, since I have yet to master any other language besides
English to know exactly how thinking in that language is different from thinking
in English.

lojbab