Long Live the memory of F.C. Conybeare, or at the least, of Cambridge University. What portendeth this strange greeting? Well, we could start the introduction with the very important question, “What if you could invent just that language newest to the world that hugs the light of nature’s requirements more closely than any other tongue ever has, so that those who engage its use become highly successful and profitable in all that they do?” Well, now you can. Let me explain.
From the study of the ancient world, I observed that the most fruitful culture was the Hellenistic; and, of course, given my particular social theory (here oversimplified but accurate), that you can know a lingsuistic (or language-constructed) tree by its cultural fruit, we should comprise a language that combines the best elements of Alexandrian and Attic Greek of the scientists, inventors, historians, mathematicians and other scholars — to work with as the template for the new, powerfully wise Greek I here propose as “meta-Greek.” These were Alexandrian Heros of old, men of Attic (even Polybian) reknown.
First let us consider the principle of economy. How many letters do we need in our alphabet? 24 like the ancient Greeks? 26 as with English? Nope. Consider that the machine language that underlies everything computers do (like yield this blog post) only employs two symbols — just two. If we consider that these are about the same as “letters” in an alphabet (we actually count zeros and ones as numbers, but its close enough for gubmint work).
Now, please note my second point that the divine language we call “DNA,” the one that our blessed Creator used to create humans as (minimally) extremely complex “systems of systems,” employs only 4 proteins that correspond in English to the four letters “G,C,T, A.” Just 4 letters in your alphabet and you can create the animal kingdom and the world of machines and computers. So how many do I propose? Exactly 10 letters — because the light of nature tells us to do everything in tens to do it most efficiently when it comes to our task of environmental management (not the one God was tackling when He created us).
These are the letters so far that I have eliminated from the Greek alphabet — omicron (‘o’) does the same thing as the “a,” so we do not need both — bye bye to “omicron.” I shortened the alphabet, whittling as I went, until I arrived at these letters — in their English counterpart:
A, D, E, K, L, M, N, P, S, W (w is a long O in Greek “omega”); If the council proposes a better set, I shall be happy enough to go with that, but this one is fairly close to a good template. Other characteristics of this language include:
- Each letter has a numerical value and can be used for math — the values run 1 – 9, + 0. Their math is base-sixty math, meaning that as you count up to 60, when you reach 59, the next number you encounter reads “100” and what would have been 61 in base ten math is in this math “101.” And so 600 years (in today’s typical base 10) reads instead in this math as “1000.”
- Neo-Greek does not have or use the passive voice, but only the active and middles voices.
- It has ONLY (limited by Ockham’s razor) about 60 thousand words (not more) — carefully controlled by an authorized dictionary held under the control of the world peace council elders — France does this sort of thing too, to maintain the higher quality of the language over time, which is a wise practice.
- It has only one aorist tense (past tense forms are two in the older Greek) — 2d aorist.
- It uses the same vocabulary as the best of the language use of the ancient Hellenistic Greeks, and its compound forms needed to keep pace with the best works in the world produced since (e.g. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason or Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions) by way of what is called a “reversion text.” This means you revert the present language back into its “Neo-Greek counterpart” by dynamic equivalence, and harvest for the new Greek dictionary those new technical words so required (by reversion) by the architects of literary excellence.
- The New tongue will employ no verbs of being (as shaved off by Ockham), since we can easily replace these with much more active and graphemic (picturesque to the mind’s eye) verbs in every instance, enchancing the tactile quality of the speech or text.
- The new tongue ablates the passive voice in favor of the active or middle voices only, for reasons just like those mentioned immediately above.
- As many verbs as possible will “regularize,” eliminating in ancient Greek for instance the “-MI” verbs in favor of their refashioning after the kind of their more regular counterparts. ” -mi” verbs in Greek are like the plural for cactus in English, requiring the oddball plural ending of “-ii,” as with the word “radius.”
- Next, we come to the problem of negation. Using the words of negation — no, not, never (i.e. “not ever” contracted), none, no longer (one word in Greek) performs tasks that seem in every case better managed by positive (sometimes inverse) affirmation. Many words in English, just as in Greek, seem to render these unnecessary and therefore also Ockham-omitted. It may end up that only most or half of the negating words prove redundant. All is well. We will still need to omit the unnecessary among them. Let us call this linguistic trimming “limited negative removal.” Please note that it remains quite plausible that excessive use of, and options for (synonymy of) negative terms may in fact provide us with the culprit that engineered the use of “zeros” and negative numbers (nonpositive integers) in early math by offering the literary counterpart to these numerals — by which these evil integers have crept in unawares among the flock.
This task of omitting (modestly) those forms of negation we simply do not need will require us to classify all those uses of negation we do and do not need. Sometimes we use them to exclude (negation of exclusion, e.g. “This set has no members” = “excludes all members”), and still other times to deny (negation of affirmation, e.g “we do not believe”), or to indicate what one does not have (negation of possession, e.g. “I have no pears, only apples”)10. Neo-greek should be used for creating the rehearsed speech index cards for memorization. This is in fact and excellent way to learn the new Greek once you have a few cards written in that language.
- We will avoid in the new Greek — all “Bible” language (“fiction speak”) — preferring instead the synonyms for these as much as proves possible, using a good ancient Greek Thesauros, taking our words fr0m the same tongue or a very similar non-biblical dialect (Attic, Ionian, Boeotion, Corinthian, blah blah blah. Long live Macedonian and “Big Phil” [lip II, father of Alexander of Macedon]). Most of our words should be chosen from the most fruitful or successful Greek of yore and its compounds – we can match these roots and prefixes and suffixes and affixes with much stealthiness aforethought, fixing nearly everything that needeth a-fixin.
- I hold that these best sources from the world of ancient history should include Herodotos, Xenophon, Polybios and Jospehos; and from the world of science, those extant 13 of Hero of Alexandria — with help in math also from the earlier mathematicians (inclusively, not as a limit).
10. We should use this new Greek for all our (Sophic Deists’) learning materials and documents, yeah as our primary and most profitable tongue for rehearsed speech, to the glory of God and profit of all. And then we should create an F.C. Conybeare-like Grammar for the new Greek, which when completed correctly should prove inestimably EASIER TO LEARN ANCIENT AND EXCELLENT GREEK FOR NEW STUDENTS.
HALL – E – LOO – YUH!! Easy-to-learn Greek!! Autos Ergos dunameos estin!!! Doxa en tois ouraniois!!
I shall try to continue on this topic at greater length later.