nothing more

To solve all linguistic problems, one can make up a case of an ideal language. Many have tried to do this before, but the trick is to use completely different language, go in to the blue, as it were.

We can say, that there is an invisible coherence force, which we can call what ever we want, even a God, if we want, or f(x), or $ but it’s function is simply to positively deliver coherence and mark deviation, such that where ever meaning is lacking this force comes into play. Said force is simply a combination of velocity and mass, a summation of elements and a certain name. It would simply be a matter at hand again instead of an existential commodification or signification. What becomes significant are the types of forces we can ascribe, their constraints and interplay.

One must not only describe such forces as acting upon meaning or something we call language or the brain, it acts upon our consciousness up to our biology; the entire system is effected by this force.

Such mysticism is not entirely unwarranted.

For the linguist, it’s something like a particle, lexically. The utility of such an approach is how it must submit to the empire of collective human expression and thought: to list or generate all usage is not possible. But to paradigmatically generate or list all possible usage is done. Such is language.

For the rest of us who simply speak it, such a force is that of feeling. Is is the feeling words give us which delivers their finality. It doesn’t need to be mentioned any more than that.

What it says of previous work is tremendous, but what it does with it will prove its case. If a unified force of language exists, it’s effect upon observed linguistic phenomenon is also unified. What this means is that we should be able to say, given any linguistic element, what its observed and unobserved cases are—it means marking everything. This way we can say things of the form “the linguistic property of this linguistic element is found in accordance with that property of those elements”: basic collocation, concordance and colloquialization.

Take any given word, you can see how it sounds and how its sounded (mind the distinction), how its written and morphs, where and when it’s used, why and how. Take any given, letter, or phrase, or sentence, or discourse and we can do the same.

Because language is a tool, it is abused and so deteriorates. This means that how, why, or when and where it’s used infinitely confound and all we have left is the sound. But from here we can derive the force and forget about the language.

It would be nothing more than a glorified dictionary, a great corpus of ideas and the map of the world created.

But what a balanced act it was/is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *