The latest update on my research for the newer and most profitable language has taken completely unexpected turns. It began with the attempt to configure an authoritative thesaurus for the Ancient Greek language — about which I am unaware of any such example in existence. I cannot find an authoritative thesaurus for the Ancient Greek tongue from any university or publisher. (Help, South Africa?). I am looking for one which has its Greek taken from the ancient scholars of Alexandria and the Attic historians.
In my attempt to re-create the ancient Greek tongue from its most scholarly (ancient — and [‘reversion-text’] modern) sources, and to cause it to conform more closely to the principles of the light of nature (e.g., necessity, uniformity, profitability, coherence, correspondence, etc) than any other language has, I have rememebered something that completely restructured my efforts. The light of nature displays what we know as “ideal.” If one were to create an “ideal” language, it would have to eliminate many features (of, say, English) that we simply take for granted. All references to vices and evil would disappear from its dictionary. We hardly consider these ideal. This leaves us with no references to lying, murdering, etc. It seems to make it less realistic at some point, intoroducing what seems a unique problem. How to be both accurate and ideal? Answer: follow the light of nature, since it remains normative. And reality exhibits its ideals as principles (not necessarily in the present situation of the cosmos). Reality conforms over time to language, since the culturally-prominent language primarily constructs one’s culture.
Here I present some of the other features we would need to “shave off” in to promote the ideal tongue —
- references to moral evil and vice (This needs special discussion for legal codes. But it does in fact remain workable — somewhat surprisingly).
- verbs of being (as redundant and having no isolable extralinguistic referents). I like to call these “etheral space-junk.”
- passive voice (unnecessary)
- Non-referential indicators (beware “symbols that point at nothing”) — zero and negative numbers, the long form of Pi, verbs of being, and other words like “Ghost,” “demon,” “Apollo,” “Marduk,” “laziness” (sloth), “ghouls,” “Santa Claus,” etc. This would also omit literary works of fiction. These also seem quite unnecessary for gaining wisdom. The light of nature commands us to speak the truth in love toward one another.
- Religious curses and cursing, anathemas, etc These are (for Deists), er, “heretical” — fingernails on chalkboard. Uh-hum. We don’t need that screeching, fiery garbage.
- REVISION TO EARLIER WORK — ALERT. I have decided to rewrite this section on negation due to ongoing studies on the topic, which seem to relate negation by different forms of equivalence (i.e. De Morgan’s theorem, commutative property of equality, etc) to simple affirmed propostions. This means that most forms (though not necessarily all) of negation will have to remain. Some forms of negation, or ways of expressing it, still remain under suspicion however.
- We must also work to eliminate low-quality language from the ideal tongue. Low quality compared to what? By low-quality, we mean to imply a comparison with other words of like kind. Shop and compare. If many words seem to do the job much better than another, dump the slacker. Do not allow too much of the same talk — chisel away at excessive synonymy — favoring only the very best verbs, adjectives and nouns. These “paint a picture” in the mind’s eye, according to the master wordsmith, George Orwell. In other words, say “soar” not just “rise.” Say “chandelier,” not ” lamp.” Lousy words contribute little or naught to the mental picture, which should comprise a beautiful painting (streaming video) in the mind’s eye.
- I believe we need no more than 60, 000 words in our vocabulary. The working vocabulary of most people runs no more than some 25, 000 words. The entire Greek Bible — both testaments — only sports about 11, 000 to 12, 000 unique word forms. We do not need more than 60, 000. And this will prove no abitrary figure, though I will show only later at length how I arrived at this number. It has to do with the construction of the human body, designed by God (We are 30 digits + appendages for each person; and the family requires two persons for reproduction = 60; 1000 forms a non-arbitrary number at 10 to the third power; more about these numbers as chosen by the light of nature at a later time).
This limitation runs up the quality of our writing and speech, and reduces linguistic “drag,” the confusion that results from using poor language — and then from using language poorly. Remember the principle of the light of nature we observe as “supply and demand.” Keeping the size of our dictionary thus trimmed, and its content-quality lofty, means that it profits all the more — profitability goes up (UP and AWAY!). It also makes it both possible, and eventually likely, that one could know every single word in the tongue — and learn to use each skillfully. Even the most brainiac of Ph.D.’s cannot hope to master even half of the English tongue — now showing off some 600 thousand words and more. Much of it repeats just the same idea overmuch.
Quality before quantity.
More about this later. Please ponder this post — and pray for mercy.