jan Ote wrote:Is
aUI language really a one of the
best developed philosophical languages of modern times?
I can only tackle the part about what would make something a good philosophical language.
If reality really was a hierarchical system of categorized things, then a language that reflects this order would be useful. I suspect the premise is wrong-- reality is just similar enough to an hierarchical system of categorized things that if one chooses a system, almost any system, it will be useful enough for talking about the world, but won't actually explain any part of it. So what to make of the fact that poop in wilken's language is downward-bodily-motion and in toki pona it is unpleasant-squishy-stuff ?
One of the things I though toki pona could be used for would be a Wilkin's style thesaurus. If I was looking for words (in English) similar to "bad", I'd flip to the ike page and start looking at all the compound words with ike at the head. If I found that snakes, woman and dangerous things were located close to each other on this hierarchy, I might imagine I've discovered something about reality (the philosophical language premise), or about our biases regarding reality (a sort of Saphir-Worph premise), or more likely that those concepts had to go somewhere and the patterns are largely due to chance.
jan Ote wrote:Does aUI have any grammar (I haven't found any mention of the grammar) or is it a mere set of symbols (letters and digits) with assigned meanings?
I figure even if a conlang writer hasn't written a grammar, the language will gain a grammar a soon as it gains a community and a reasonable sized corpus. I can't find any significant amounts of aUI written on the net. I did find jan Kipo's post of the lord's prayer
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:vZ3 ... clnk&gl=us
jan Ote wrote:...The search for the perfect language is about the history of idea of perfect language, but toki pona is not the case....
I've been musing about Cognitive Therapy and toki pona again. An anti-depression con-language based on cognitive therapy might encroach on the philosophical language turf because CT is about avoiding biased thoughts that set off sequences of thoughts that drag down the mood--such as thinking that something that happens is superlatively awful (when in fact it was ordinary and banal), that the future is likely to be unrewarding (when in fact we have no evidence one way or the other). The challenge is recognizing such thoughts is that they pop up effortlessly and it takes some thoughtfulness to recognize them. It seems it would be useful if there were obligatory grammatical markers that required one to categorize each thought into one of the various categories of though that CT finds relevant. That way, a thought would be instinctively noted as "awfulizing" by noting which negative superlative marker was used, or which attitudinal was attached to the future tense.