Talk:Philosophical language: Difference between revisions
From FrathWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
Cedh audmanh (talk | contribs) m (what about "idealistic languages"?) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::The reason "all the focus" is given to taxonomic languages is because those are the majority of philosophical languages that I've come across so far in archiving things from langmaker. The conlang-types pages are works in progress. I think Toki Pona *does* fit the bill for a philolang, but I do also agree that it should be stuck under a different heading than the taxolangs, definitely. Does anyone have a proposal of how to place it? -[[User:Bornfor|bornfor]] 14:02 (EST) 14 January 2012 | :::The reason "all the focus" is given to taxonomic languages is because those are the majority of philosophical languages that I've come across so far in archiving things from langmaker. The conlang-types pages are works in progress. I think Toki Pona *does* fit the bill for a philolang, but I do also agree that it should be stuck under a different heading than the taxolangs, definitely. Does anyone have a proposal of how to place it? -[[User:Bornfor|bornfor]] 14:02 (EST) 14 January 2012 | ||
:::I edited the page up a bit. I'm not sure what to call Toki Pona in terms of naming its subset of philolangs, but what I have done- is it acceptable to all concerned parties? -[[User:Bornfor|bornfor]] 14:10 (EST) 14 January 2012 | :::I edited the page up a bit. I'm not sure what to call Toki Pona in terms of naming its subset of philolangs, but what I have done- is it acceptable to all concerned parties? -[[User:Bornfor|bornfor]] 14:10 (EST) 14 January 2012 | ||
::::What about "idealistic languages"? -[[User:Cedh audmanh|cedh audmanh]] 16:16, 14 January 2012 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 16:16, 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)
- The reason "all the focus" is given to taxonomic languages is because those are the majority of philosophical languages that I've come across so far in archiving things from langmaker. The conlang-types pages are works in progress. I think Toki Pona *does* fit the bill for a philolang, but I do also agree that it should be stuck under a different heading than the taxolangs, definitely. Does anyone have a proposal of how to place it? -bornfor 14:02 (EST) 14 January 2012
- I edited the page up a bit. I'm not sure what to call Toki Pona in terms of naming its subset of philolangs, but what I have done- is it acceptable to all concerned parties? -bornfor 14:10 (EST) 14 January 2012
- What about "idealistic languages"? -cedh audmanh 16:16, 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)
