Imagine that the gods and goddesses, our divine Parents, prove to be imminently practical in the way they have created us, and intended our structure (structural design) to teach what we need to know. This would yield to the study of human anatomy a kind of special status. For instance, suppose we were to note that our teeth are symmetical in several ways, that each of us (male and female) bear 32 teeth, and this means that the minimum required for ordinary discourse (communication) is 64. The soft parts (enamel of which our teeth are made is the hardest substance in the body) of our mouths (moving parts) that contribute to speech formation include the lips and the (cloven) tongue — we can take the throat for granted — gives us four more parts (each) to consider.
This yields that magic # of 72 (parts) for speech mobility. Likewise, we find that those concerned with profitability know the rule of 72, the magic # into which one divides the rate of return — say 9% –to find out how long it would take to double your money at that rate — here, 8 years, since 9 x 8 =72. It is interesting that the number of letters in the DNA alphabet + 8 (somethings else one needs to add to mere letters to have a language) gives us 72. Language is more than just letters of its alphabet.
The letters should bear (be composed of) straight lines only (these resolve most easily to the reading eye and create greater clarity), and each should receive careful scrutiny as to it symbolic meaning. The alphabet should use only majuscules (capital letters, not lower case) that can reduce a little in size for the sake of economy — more letters per page.
I have a very long list now of the different features of the ideal language, and I shall try to give a reasonably full expression of those here. It is neither exactly a natural language, nor precisely a formal one,though it has
It begins with a full vocabulary describing the transcendentals, or categories and propositions most basic to our ability to make sense out of the world, like:
Time (and expressions about it — before, after, since, when, simultaneous, today, tomorrow, etc.); Space (e.g. here, there, up, down, height); Ideal Values (e.g. Wisdom, science, understanding, logic, profitability, value, exchange, kindness, truth, etc); Modalities (e.g. necessity, conditional status, possibilities, certainty, probability, compossibles, truth relations, etc).; (Quantity) Number theory talk — plurality, many, few, combinations, sets, members, etc.
Voice. We use only the active or middle voices in this language, never the passive voice. It is both unnecessary and weak-ass. This means that our sentences tell “who did it,” not who the action-verb mentioned was performed upon (who received the action). We do not say “the ball was kicked,” but rather, “John kicked the ball.” Middle: “John through himself into the shower.” Here, the one who performs the action also receives it. We accept either one, but we allow neither the passive voice or verbs of being, with the exception of the verbs “seem” (appear) or exist. The others contribute not a damn thing of value to the sentence and seem presupposed already in the action verbs. If Dave buys groceries, we already know that both Dave and groceries both exist. We have no time for the silliness represented by verbs of being, or fake deities named “I AM” (SIR SPAM).
Moods. The idea of a “mood” in grammar-world aims at showing how the speaker sees himself/herself in relation to his/her audience. Is (s) he ordering them to do something? (This would be the “imperative mood” or else the subjunctive (e.g. “Let all the wise avoid the eating of snakes” “For these are neither crunchy nor delicious”). It is quite possible that the only two moods we need to govern speech acts are the subjunctive and the indicative (truth-descriptive). “Let the wise inform me of …” — could replace the question or interrogative mood. The indicative could replace the optative (Oh that I could fly like the birds!) — “I [would/do] consider it ideal that/if …”. In any case, no more than 4 moods seem necessary.
Structure. The ideal form of writing (which governs the speaking of rehearsed speech) consists in pairs of quatrains. 9 pairs of quatrains would yield a 72-fold structure of writing/ speaking. These form the basic unit of writing and speaking like a mini-chapter in a book. The quatrains are like 4 parallel sentences, set in symmetrical pairs.
Hendiads (pairs) and Connectives (links). All verbs, adjectives and nouns (really all words) of any real significance – as judged by the writer – transpire in pairs or “hendiads.” This language pairs almost everything — ideas, words, events, phenomena — in units as of “two kinds.” It grasps the world as binary and complementary — consisting of male and female, north and south, hammers and nails, names and places, etc. Its grammar and syntax (way it arranges words to form ideas/sentences) both reflect this real world of physics and DNA — as do its vocabulary choices.
The links that bind its words into pairs are the same as ours in English (and, or, nor, but) — e.g. chocolate chips AND cookie-dough — except that all of the most-oft used ones have a single symbol to replace the word. So “this AND that” could read “this & that,” where the “&” (ampersand) is actually shown as a small diamond.
Shorthand. Every language has most-often used words. Not only does each of these busy words have a single symbol for it (like the “AND”-diamond), but every one of its most-oft used “parts” has one too. So its prepositions — like “over,” “around,” “through” each has a designated symbol — and one is assigned to each prefix, root, suffix, etc that can be used to build words, if it qualifies as a “high-frequency” part of speech, or idea, in this language.
Math System. The way we write and speak about the “many-ness” of it all — oodles and scads of research papers to be written — reflects the ideal way of counting, which would here involve only even numbers, twos, fours, eights, sixteens, 32, 64 and 72 would be very commonplace kinds of numbers to talk of. You can say “three,” but you cannot write it using odd #’s. So to write “3,” you would instead write the binary “6/2,” — regarded as irreducible — when only even #’s are allowed. We do not write either 1 or 3, so western religion has no representation. We have no word for “trinity.” That is to us silly %&^!. The math system is somewhat like “binary base-8” math, where 64 is the “ceiling” and the number “72” is written “110,” (in base 10 speak); that is, it consists in 1 unit of 64, plus 1 unit of 8, and 0 units of two. 128 is written in base-10 world as 200. The # 200, 2/2 is the same as 129. We could shorten it to 200 with a tiny “2” (subscript) at the end, or tiny 2/2.
Taxonomy and Classifications of Nouns and Verbals. We can classify words and ideas by their most important features (important to the sentence or to the reasons for writing about them) — by giving their categories a symbol or two — and then listing these symbols after or before the words they match. Then words can link together as important pairs — like tag pairs in HTML. These paired or grouped words (so bunched together) serve as “context markers” in writing to show how the thoughts of the writer “fit together” in neat patterns that EXPLAIN what in the world THIS is doing THERE. These pairs can show themes, order of importance, main points, and the like.
This language should prove more accurate and precise, more profitable and scientifically-capable, more adaptive and versatile, more future-oriented and ideal, than any tongue ever invented, when we use these “tag-pair” markers that indicate a precising context, and structural development.
Formal Features and Functionality. Ancient Greeks sports a feature that divides a sentence in half and contrasts the one to the other. It means, “Men-” (On the one hand) followed by information; and then it means “De-,” but on the other hand ….; “right hand giveth, but left hand taketh away” brethren. This kind of functionality can be expanded greatly, depending how we could wish to compare the first part written/ spoken with the second. Here are some of the ways I propose to do this. Each way of relating part 1 to part 2 receives a symbol that lodges in a particular place — at the beginning of Sentence 1 and then at the beginning of the second sentence after the two link symbols are established. These could read, “There is THIS, BUT THEN there is THAT” (men-de); There is this AND there is ALSO that (of like kind); This DOES that; This SHOWS that; This resembles THAT; This (dis-) proves THAT — each verb can have its own symbol — Then the second part or sentence can enlist a symbol to show how part 1 relates to part 2 — This, but even MORE that; This greatly increases that (exponentially?); This completes that; This unifies that; This subordinates/ coordinates (to/ with) THAT; This equals (to) that; This transcends THAT; This mirrors THAT (symmetry);
Each of these bold words above represents a kind of “function.” These can display math functions, logical functions, set-relation functions, and can even fit to specific formulae to show or measure scientific calibrations. We will want to choose and limit our functionality markers carefully — lest we find ourselves ruling the world scientifically and accurately with good will aforethought. These formal features could alone make the ideal language worth the price of admission.
In the past, I have considered different languages as the best template to start with. I have left behind nearly all of them, and my current focus aims at “Swiss French” — people in western Switzerland speak this tongue — as the best tongue to begin with for drawing an excellent vocabulary. Its full vocabulary development will probably derive from several languages, plausibly including vocab. choices from even computer programming languages and scientific dialects from some of the more empirical subdisciplines. But the ideal language must have an important aesthetic component (“sound beautiful”) and this makes Swiss French a very likely candidate.
I Shall Continue This Post at some length to bring all up to date when I might.