Quote:
Originally Posted by Ara Pacis
These ideas can be incorporated into a coding scheme to make it more pleasant to speak and hear. But other than those "ergonomic" considerations, the linguistic and philosophical reasoning will be lost on most of the people who would employ such names.
On the contrary, I think encoding multiple levels of astronomical data demands a much broader range of phonemes and phones increasing both the number of possible permutations. The more phones we have to work with, the more will we have the ability to distinguish one object from another. Not everyone who knows a name will need or even want to decode it. That they know it can be decoded to reveal encoded detail is enough, should they wish to look up a decoding table.
The point of having a name for anything is to distinquish it from something else. Once upone a time, names had meanings in a language like "beloved of God" but these days a person may be named "David", because it's a family name and sound different from "Jonathan". The namers may know what the original meaning of the name is, but the name no longer evokes that meaning in everyday utterance because the sounds and constituting words do not have that meaning in our present language. (I refer to english, since I don't know if that is the case with Hebrew speakers.)
|
But the idea of phonosemantics is that the associations of other words have an influence on our interpretation of new words.
Quote:
|
If we look at two pairs of names, which ones seem to be more easily distinguished from their partner: ISININ & ASININ or Mellimor & Kezelmat? I think it is the latter pair, and if we want to figure out a naming convention that uses harsh sounding "k" to represent some aspect of the object that we would consider harsh, then that can be built into the code. Perhap "K" will be restricted to use in rocky, terrestrial planets.
|
Mellimor and Kezelmat? Those are great!
Like I said, that was just a simple example. We are only using a few letters in that example. The question is how to "rationally" construct the system for putting together phonemes into distinct units for astronomical data in particular, but in a way that provides the information contained in other systems as well. That is what I meant when speaking of the construction of connectionist models - the subtlety of connecting related ideas without allowing them to fall into the gulf of obscurity and indistinguishability.
No offense to any Brits, but I may be busy July 4. After that I hope to post a few ideas for language schema, if there's interest. It will hopefully demonstrate what it is I mean.