My further studies in the Deist paradigm, and in the Greek tongue, have taken some unexpected turns, especially in light of what I now call the “orthographic” and temporal construal (how we construct time) involved in the building up of culture. In my previous post, I had narrowed things down to a most efficient tongue in the shape of what I call “ten-letter” (deka) Greek. It was to consist of merely 60k words, following Ockham’s razor.
I now consider this too limited a vocabulary for the “expanded reference” (when one must name and “point” to new things) required by a modern tongue that would enable it to point to, say, “microwave ovens.” I am beginning to think instead of the advantages of the Greek stems, prefixes and suffixes — that we should have a total of 60 thousand stems plus affixes (these do not change in number over time, and are to be used in various combinations) not just 60 thousand words. This would enable expansion of words as needed, but in such a way as would always fit neatly the older order by which our semantic library grows.
Those ten letters I chose would have the English equivalence — only with no curvature in the (squarish) letters — of — A, D, E, K, L, N, O, P, S, and U.
UPDATE — As I continue my research, I from time to time make important corrections. Because of the importance of the first letter of the Greek alphabet, “A” (lpha), and the relatively lesser importance of the letter “M” (u), given that we retain the very similar N (u) to the alphabet – I have removed the M, and (re-) imposed the A (above). The A carries too much importance for feminine nominal endings and the like.
Here is another new innovation of my language:
Each letter contains certain topical terms and all the terms of that topic are restricted to options beginning with just that letter. This is like the library catalog system. As an example: if the Deist community considers the word to be a theological term — say “theology” or else “divinity,” then the word would have to begin with the letter “D” (Delta in Greek).
In this way, the linguistic community could map out exactly which topics have words that begin with this or that letter — and could “File” each word under its appropriate letter “Heading.” Each letter would contain perhaps 10 – 20 topics. This would mean that even if you did not know the meaning of some word, if you knew the filing system for words, you could hazard a good guess just by knowing which letter begins the word. A diphthong (a unique letter combination like “eu” [which in Greek means “good”] with its own sense or sound) can be used as an additional “letter” to file more topics whenever it might be needed. This makes the tongue “extensible,” capable of expanding over time and adapting to the later needs and uses to which the tongue might be applied — or for new problems to be solved.
This would make the language VERY easy to learn quickly (easy memorization and recall), and very easy to grasp, for both beginners and the more learned.
UPDATE — I am for the time being dropping the new letters I had previously posted here because the Greek uncials (capital letters only) can be written smaller (perhaps something similar to half-size is best), and involve no curvature, except for the Omicron, which can be an upright “diamond shape” (my preference) and the upsilon (U) which can be written “squarishly” — as two reverse image “L” letters, meeting in the middle at bottom. So this will be the squarish “U’ then.
We simply have no need of minuscule letters. The technology of electronic typing has made them obsolete. Ockham’s razor now bids us to shave them off.
While it remains easily possible to create even smaller letters, ones that use the position within the imaginary “square block” space of each possible letter to signify a different letter, this gains no advantage to the typist who hits keystrokes to print letters — letters not written by hand in the older fashion of writing. If one wishes to make a “A” by posting a dash that starts at the upper left hand corner of the square and draws straight down to its center, he could make the next letter form from the center of that same horizontal top line, sliding down to the center, so that each new dash (that paints the next letter in the alphabet) goes just like this — all the way around the square, until it comes full circle, er, full square, from left to right.
But we must ask the question: if we go this economically, remembering that language really does construct the social order, and one’s alphabet really does construct one’s language, changing the most basic of building blocks –letters — into dashes the form a rotary cycle would have very important consequences for the type of society that would emerge from this writing system, and its vocabulary. Just what would these be likely to be? I am unsure. But I invite thoughtful reflection on the topic.
You will notice that as my progress marches forward in determining the simplest, most uniform (following nature) and extensible (future-oriented = wise) language, its adaptions move away from the Greek language one step at a time. It still maintains the form of stems and affixes, and uses Greek parts for its vocabulary building. But it has no necessary base in the Greek vocabulary, except where we deem the parts of some Greek word to have been spliced together perfectly to say just what we intend by the use of the consequent word built just so from its parts.
We will also be maintaining approx. the same rules for grammar and syntax (language use), unless the rules of the light of nature suggest a more specific attenuation than the ancient Greek rules require, now here or now there.
Questions also remain regarding punctuation (do we need it? or should we simply use separation of white-space), whether our script should read top to bottom, or right to left, or follow some other order, how we should group our paragraphs (or other literary units), how should indicate whether we intend the letter-value or numerical value of a letter, and a few other considerations of text, paratext (columns and rows, letter spacing, pagination, margins, etc) and meta-text, which concerns the building and the building blocks of larger textual schemes.
These concerns might include the philosophy of language, stories, genre, plots, thought-form construction, symmetry, typology, indirect discourse, mythopoeic diction, etc.
I shall post more on these (but not all of them) topics related to my new “super-greek”, which is looking a lot less Greek these days, a bit later when I can.