Talk:Philosophical language: Difference between revisions
From FrathWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(replied to Logomachist) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:According to Wikipedia, TP it's inspired by taoist philosophy and tries to implement/test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, so I think it counts. | :According to Wikipedia, TP it's inspired by taoist philosophy and tries to implement/test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, so I think it counts. | ||
:'''Keep'''. —[[User:Fenhl|Fenhl]] 02:14, 14 January 2012 (PST) | :'''Keep'''. —[[User:Fenhl|Fenhl]] 02:14, 14 January 2012 (PST) | ||
::It is kind of weird that a general definition is given, but then all the focus is given on the specific (and IME more common) definition of a taxonomically-arranged language—a context under which Toki Pona certainly does not belong. If Toki Pona is kept we might want to list it under a subsection of other types of philosophical languages, probably with some explanation. —[[User:Muke|Muke Tever]] | [[User Talk:Muke|✎]] 10:05, 14 January 2012 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 10:05, 14 January 2012
I believe that Toki Pona is mislabeled a philosophical language. Its "elevator pitch" links is with Daoism but there's not really a strong connection. If no one objects I'll remove it from the list of modern philosphical languages. --Logomachist 20:17, 13 January 2012 (PST)
- From the page: "A philosophical language is an engineered language which attempts to implement some kind of philosophical idea."
- According to Wikipedia, TP it's inspired by taoist philosophy and tries to implement/test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, so I think it counts.
- Keep. —Fenhl 02:14, 14 January 2012 (PST)
- It is kind of weird that a general definition is given, but then all the focus is given on the specific (and IME more common) definition of a taxonomically-arranged language—a context under which Toki Pona certainly does not belong. If Toki Pona is kept we might want to list it under a subsection of other types of philosophical languages, probably with some explanation. —Muke Tever | ✎ 10:05, 14 January 2012 (PST)
