[font=Tahoma]From the early Dark Ages to the Renaissance it was widely believed that the language spoken in the Garden of Eden was a perfect language, expressing all possible things, and that all current languages were its decadent descendants. This is a topic that delves into the history of this idea and the idea itself.
[quote author=Nymann link=board=translate;num=1060891326;start=0#0 date=08/14/03 at 16:02:06][font=Tahoma]From the early Dark Ages to the Renaissance it was widely believed that the language spoken in the Garden of Eden was a perfect language, expressing all possible things, and that all current languages were its decadent descendants. This is a topic that delves into the history of this idea and the idea itself.
What do you think this language is like?[/font]
This is pure Platonism, to which I don’t really subscribe. If the Garden of Eden did exist, it was in the minds of the ancients who, like every generation ever since, probably wanted to get the idea across that "things were better in the old days". I speak two languages fluently. Either one is quite sufficient to my needs.
[font=tahoma]Noone understood the post. But I am quite used to it.
"Pure Platonism"... Who is talking about Plato?! And Christians believe that the Garden still exists… Perhaps you ought to read Eco’s "Search for the Perfect Language"... I hope I didn’t offend you, but mentioning Platonism…[/font] ::)
[quote author=Nymann link=board=translate;num=1060891326;start=0#5 date=08/15/03 at 12:25:03]Heaven is in Eden (i.e. those are synonyms) ...
No, they’re not. Eden was the earthly paradise in which man first dwelled. Heaven, then as now, refers to the paradise beyond the clouds in which God and his messengers are believed to dwell.
While both Eden and heaven can be taken to be synonyms with paradise, they are not synonyms with each other, and carry some extremely different symbolic meanings.
~Silver
In whose paradise everybody communicates via groovy dance moves
the language spoken in the Garden of Eden was a perfect language, expressing all possible things, and that all current languages were its decadent descendants
Excuse me for interpreting this as being philosphically related to the ideas of Plato/Socrates, but to me it is. Read the Allegory of the Cave and you might understand. Or not.
[quote author=Silver Han link=board=translate;num=1060891326;start=0#6 date=08/15/03 at 21:36:18]
No, they’re not. Eden was the earthly paradise in which man first dwelled. Heaven, then as now, refers to the paradise beyond the clouds in which God and his messengers are believe
[quote author=Palewriter link=board=translate;num=1060891326;start=0#7 date=08/16/03 at 00:24:16]Excuse me for interpreting this as being philosphically related to the ideas of Plato/Socrates, but to me it is. Read the Allegory of the Cave and you might understand. Or not.
I am very familiar with Plato’s ideas, but I didn’t want to talk about him because this is not a philosophy forum. I wanted to talk about the language but now I do not want any more. 8)
[quote author=Nymann link=board=translate;num=1060891326;start=0#5 date=08/15/03 at 12:25:03]Heaven is in Eden (i.e. those are synonyms) as I see it.
I never said that. I said synonyms for paradise
I beg to differ. Clearly you did say so, whether or not it was what you meant to say, and no, nowhere in that post did you use the term ‘paradise’.
Regardless of whatever religion or lack thereof anyone hereabouts subscribes to, I’d like to hear their ideas of what the perfect language would be like.
~Silver
Who wants verbs that don’t conjugate. At all. Ever. :)
[quote author=Nymann link=board=translate;num=1060891326;start=0#12 date=08/16/03 at 13:47:08]Firstly he critics my post and then he speaks about the language.
Do you refer to myself or Katy? We’re both female.
Regardless, I find the original idea of the thread very interesting.
p.s. I didn’t say so. :P ::)
Your powers of editing amaze me. :P
[quote author=KatyBr link=board=translate;num=1060891326;start=0#11 date=08/16/03 at 13:30:48]a perfect anything is subjective eh?
Yep. That’s half the fun of it, no?
The problem of non-conjugating verbs producing ambiguity could be resolved by indicating person with nouns and pronouns, and indicating tense through adverbs. I too like the idea of noun declensions, so long as it’s completely regular, with the twist that I’d follow a model less like Latin and more like Japanese, where the endings aren’t inherently part of the words themselves, but are expressed in ‘particles’ immediately after the word.
Then again, a great deal of declension/conjugation/ inflection/etc. does lend a nice brevity sometimes.
I too look forward to hearing from Tim, Agoraphile, and whoever else.
Your offended again, aren’t you? I really soometimes need a translator for Katy’s posts—I don’t seem to understan them. Is this because of the interpunction or something else, I do not really know. But I’m so sorry about this!!
If I mentioned Tim, Agoraphile, Dr. Language, that does not mean that I don’t like your replies, answers… Quite on the contrary! I am always very glad to hear your oppinion because you bring joy to every discussion. I guess it’s your character…
And I really don’t like when linguists do not answer posts that are related to their job.
I guess Nymann doesn’t want to discuss Plato so out the window he goes. I’ve been straying from the topic again. My bad. :P
The perfect language would be one whice everybody in the world understands and speaks fluently. Pronunciation would follow orthography strictly and the rules of grammar would be simple and absolute. No exceptions. Since it would already be a perfect language, there could be no additions or evolutions of new words. Even back-formations would be frowned upon.
It sounds practical enough but as boring as hell.
- PW
~Silver
In whose paradise everybody communicates via groovy dance moves
The perfect language would be one whice everybody in the world understands and speaks fluently. Pronunciation would follow orthography strictly and the rules of grammar would be simple and absolute. No exceptions. Since it would already be a perfect language, there could be no additions or evolutions of new words. Even back-formations would be frowned upon.
Languages do change over time though, so eventually wouldn’t we have several thousands of different creoles of this language - eventually even several thousand independent languages?
