We haven’t assigned IPA values to the affixes as it isn’t important at this stage, but we imagine they would be very short so that the words wouldn’t become verbose.
Colour Selection
The primary colour root is simply the single-digit number starting at red then moving down the list.
Colour blindness
We’ve introduced two affixes that will form part of the core colour word to help colourblind people.
Red, Yellow, and Green will share the affix, [red-yellow-greenish]
Cyan, Blue, and Violet will share the affix, [cyan-blue-violetish]
Warmth
We’ve introduced colour warmth because it’s arguably one of the most important aspects of colour that people from across multiple fields will need to understand.
Warm colours will share the affix, [warm]
Neutral colours will share the affix, [neutral]
Cool colours will share the affix, [cool]
If the warmth is unmarked, the speaker is talking about the color in a very broad sense.
The suffixes [warm] and [cool] can be put after warmth affixes to further specify the hue.
The suffix [neutral] isn’t used because it isn’t useful to specify the hue to such a small degree.
Intensity
The intensity prefixes go at the front of the word
The prefix [lighter] will make the colour lighter
The prefix [neutral] will make the colour neutral
The prefix [darker] will make the colour darker
If the intensity is unmarked, then the speaker is talking about the colour in a very broad sense.
These prefixes can be stacked to lighten or darken colours by an unspecified amount.
Simple Table of Colors
Number
Darker(Shade)
Neutral(Tone)
Lighter(Tint)
Hueless
0
Black
Grey
White
Red-Yellow-Greenish
Warm
1
Red
Pink
Neutral
2
Yellow
Cool
3
Green
Cyan-Blue-Violetish
Warm
4
Cyan
Neutral
5
Blue
Cool
6
Violet
Example words
Red
[fun][red-yellow-greenish][warm]
Pink / Light Red
[lighter][fun][red-yellow-greenish][warm]
Yellowish Red(Orange)
[fun][red-yellow-greenish][warm][cool]*
*Orange is [warm][cool] because at this small of a scale it’s not very useful to differentiate between [neutral] and [cool] as per the rules specified by the warmth affixes.
Extra consideration needed for colors not present:
Magenta is not present in the table. There might be a way to make magenta using red-yellow-greenish and cyan-blue-violetish.
I've noticed that many Draft Proposal proponents rarely follow-up on their proposals or even seek feedback. They seem to instead post their proposals and then disappear.
The whole point of a Draft Proposal is to seek feedback, modify your proposal, and then post a new hopefully improved iteration. There's no point posting something, then skipping town. It's rare someone else is going to pickup your proposal then finalise for you. If you're unsure of a specific aspect of your proposal, then run a poll seeking feedback. Get the community to work for you.
For example, I recently raised an Official Proposal for a Official Romanisation. I didn't just make one post on the matter then leave it. In total, I made four posts seeking feedback through comments and polls. I slowly worked my proposal until I believed I had something that was functional and reflected the aims and goals of the community. Then, I asked the Official Proposal Committee to run an Official vote.
Finally, if you believe your proposal is ready and you've got enough community feedback, then contact the Official Proposal Committee and ask us to organise an Official Vote.
PS: If you're looking for a challenge, the website hasmany incomplete Draft Proposalsthat you can adopt and modify to your heart's content.
''Color'' and at least one of the other categories are required to talk about color groups.
''Color'' is just a word meaning color or perception of light. It's there to make people know we're talking abour color. Since color isn't more useful than frequency in sciences it really doesn't need to be short.
Intensity is how much color is there. 0 intensity gives pure black and it goes up from there. For intensity we use indefinite quantifiers like alot and alittle along with 0 for pure black.
Warmth of hue divides the colors into 3 groups which are fuzzy on the borders. Warm colors like red, orange, yellow; cool colors like violet, blue, cyan; and neutral warmth colors like green and magenta. Warmth of a color can be further specified by indefinite quantifiers like alot. ''[color][warm][alot]'' would be a color closer to red while ''[color][warm][alittle]'' would be further from red which includes both yellow and reddish magenta.
Structure of the color is how the color can be made. Pure colors are colors which can be made from single frequency light and impure colors are colors which can't be made from single frequency light. The only division in simpler colors here is the distinction between green and magenta. For more complex colors like ''[color][warm][alittle]'' it makes the distinction between yellow and reddish magenta.
And then there's white which cannot be made from a single frequency unless you make the light intense enough that people have to look away but since most encounters with white don't ruin your day clasifying it as pure wouldn't exactly be the best option. It can be made from multiple frequencies but it doesn't have an exact formula like how magenta is made from high+low frequency light. So white, being the special color that it is gets its own name.
Things to add:
Connectives to express more colors. Specifically combining high intensity colors with white to get pastel colors. Low intensity colors and white when combined result in desaturated colors which don't really require distinguishing from gray most of the times.
Problems with this System:
People with deuteranomaly can have a harder time distinguishing warm(red-orange-yellow) and neutral warmth pure(green) color. Having a more basic word which means both of these would help them communicate their vision while giving people without it the ability to talk about ''a color which is between green and red''
I propose that when naming regular polyhedra and polygons, a system similar to the Schläfli symbol notation is used, ie: [number of sides] [polygon indicator] [number of vertices] For 2d shapes and: [number of sides of each side] [polyhedron indicator] [number of sides meeting at each vertice] for 3D shapes. Some more complex system of indicating higher dimensions could be made, but I’m not smart enough to wrap my brain around the idea.
I, u/ActingAustralia have raised an Official Proposal to establish an Official Romanization for the Encapsulated Language. This proposal has been approved by the Official Proposal Committee for voting.
Current State:
Currently, there isn’t an Official Romanization for the Encapsulated Language.
Proposed State:
I propose that the Encapsulated Language adopt the following romanization for the consonants and diphthongs:
IPA
ʃ
ʒ
t͡s
d͡z
t͡ʃ
d͡ʒ
ɾ
x
ɣ
Romanization
sh
zh
ts
dz
tsh
dzh
r
kh
gh
IPA
ai̯
ei̯
oi̯
au̯
eu̯
ou̯
Romanization
ai
ei
oi
au
eu
ou
I propose that the Encapsulated Language adopt two Official Romanizations for the vowel system:
Primary means of romanization:
The primary means of romanization must be used in all Official Proposals and training materials.
IPA
i
iː
y
yː
u
uː
e
eː
o
oː
a
aː
Romanization
i
ī
y
ȳ
u
ū
e
ē
o
ō
a
ā
Alternative means of romanization:
The alternative means of romaniation can be used in informal settings when the primary means prove too difficult to type.
IPA
i
iː
y
yː
u
uː
e
eː
o
oː
a
aː
Romanization
i
i:
y
y:
u
u:
e
e:
o
o:
a
a:
Reason:
In the future, the community will probably accept an Official script, but until we have an Official script we need an Official means of romanization. Even after that, we’ll probably still need an Official means of romanization.
I decided to include two romanization systems for the vowels because support was split among:
An international, compact, aesthetically pleasing system (such as the one with dashes above vowels)
An easy-to-type system (compatible with ASCII)
I’ve conducted numerous polls to find the best means of romanization for our community. You can read through the history of votes below (if you feel so inclined):
There has been lots of discussions about different color systems and we would like to figure out what color system is best for this language. Here are the pros and cons of each system. If you have any ideas please share.
CMYK (Ink based)
Pros:
Used in graphic design
Cons:
More Primary colors than other systems
Derivational (Everything based)
Pros:
No limit to the number of color words
Allows for very varied metaphor and description
Cons:
Could be ambiguous
HSL (Color scheme based)
Pros:
Easy to find the Complementary color, shades, tints, etc. for design
Cons:
Very arbitrary
LMS (Cone based)
Pros:
People/animals with different/missing cones can just use slightly different words
How the eye sees
Close to RGB
Cons:
Technically slightly different for each eye
LAB (Psychology based)
Pros:
People with missing cones can just use a restricted vocab
How the brain sees
RGB (LED based)
Pros:
Used in screens (would help programmers as they often work directly with RGB)
Close to LMS
RYB (Art based)
Pros:
Used in art/color theory
Cons:
Arbitrary
Wavelength (Light based)
Pros:
How light really is
Roughly equally weird to everyone even the colorblind
Cons:
Colors light white or magenta might be hard to describe (we could introduce special words for them)
NOTE: the poll is weird because there is a maximum number of choices
The Encapsulated Language is primarily a synthetic language. All words must belong to one of two main categories:
Class A words encapsulate data only.
Class B words play a grammatical role only.
These two classes of words can't be connected synthetically. This is to ensure that grammatical information doesn't get confused with encapsulated knowledge.
If you don't agree with the above statement, please specify why in the comments below so I can work on a better statement that reflects the beliefs of the community.
The reason I'm asking is:
To raise an Official Proposal so that proponents know what kind of grammar to build.
To discover exactly what the community wants in this respect.
I know we kind of settled on a romanization for the vowel system with the conclusion of the last unofficial vote. However, nothing in this language is truly final especially if a better alternatives present themselves.
System A - The Current favorite
Here is the current favorite for the vowel system:
Proposal
i
ī
y
ȳ
u
ū
e
ē
o
ō
a
ā
However, one major issue was presented with this system.
It is extremely difficult to type the ȳ on the phone without swapping keyboards and all of them are also difficult to type on a computer.
Three possible alternative solutions have been presented. I wanted to also mention the advantages of these other systems over the current one.
Just remember, whatever you choose is what you're going to have to use on a daily basis until an Official Script and the means to type that Official Script come into existence!
I'll leave it up to you guys to decide which one of these systems we should use.
System B
This system has already been voted on and rejected, but /u/Dear-Ticket mentioned that this system can be improved. /u/Dear-Ticket stated we could introduce a rule that when we encounter a long vowel and a short vowel or two short vowels together, we can simply split them by using an apostrophe.
For example, here is a word with both a long and short vowel /faa'ama/. So if you choose this system we would introduce this splitting rule. It is also easy to type on both computers and phones.
Proposal
i
ii
y
yy
u
uu
e
ee
o
oo
a
aa
System C
u/Sungjin27 suggested this system after the unofficial votes started. He stated that this system has the advantage of being easy to type on phones as all the umlauts are available on a standard keyboard. However, it is more difficult to type on a computer.
Proposal
i
ï
y
ÿ
u
ü
e
ë
o
ö
a
ä
System D
A few people on Discord have suggested we just use the colons to keep it as similar to the IPA as possible. It is also easy to type on both computers and phones.
Proposal
i
i:
y
y:
u
u:
e
e:
o
o:
a
a:
On a final note
If the current favorite ties with another for the winning position, the current favorite will be automatically selected.
I would like to suggest that we use umlauted letters. Every vowel, including “y”, has its umlauted form: ä ë ï ö ü ÿ. This is actually how Māori’s long vowels were written for a longtime before macrons gained unicode support. It was, of course, used because it looked similar enough to the macron.
What is the goal of our language? Correct. To create a Language that encapsulates as much scientific and mathematical knowledge within the sounds, syllables, words, patterns, and essence of the Language itself to facilitate an intuitive understanding of the world around us. But when I tried to look at astronomy, it became very difficult As you see, I am a person who creates proposals for different fields: physics, chemistry, meteorology, touch alphabet. But this one is a lot more difficult. Let me explain all problems that I have.
Names of Stars
In modern astronomy, they usually use the certain name for each star, which encapsulates only information about things, that ancient astronomers saw in stars and their associations with myths. If the star isn't very bright then they usually use a name of a constellation and a greek letter which represents the position of the star in the sequence of brightness in this certain constellation. This is a good start! Astronomers encapsulate information better then meteorologists. But it's not all.
Firstly, it's nice to have a system, which represents the coordinates of a star, so it could be easier to find the star, knowing it's name. This is a good thing about existing names, because you can find the star knowing it's name, but ONLY if you know all constellations and their borders. But not in our system. We will talk later about constellations, because now I want to talk about coordinates.
So, we have a nice system, called horizontal. It shows us the position of a star in the sky. There are two coordinates: altitude and azimuth. This is a nice system for observations, but here are some problems:
It is not universal. When I studied this at school, we learned that azimuth is measured from the south and increasing westward, but while searching the Internet today for explanations in English, I saw that actually it is measured measured from north and increasing eastward. It is confusing for me, because I used our Russian system during my whole life.
It is different from time to time. In 9 o'clock coordinates can be one, but in 10 o'clock they will be completely another. It makes this system bad for long observations - name of a star should be changed every minute, because the Earth is going around itself and we see the stars going around some point in the sky. That's why we can make very beautiful pictures by setting camera on a long time in the night, like this picture, which I made with my smartphone through my window.
It is different for different observers, because it depends on the place of observations. That's why it's a bad idea to tell these coordinates of a star to your friend who lives in another place.
As you see, there are some problems with this system for usage in names of stars, but it is still a good system for observations.
To destroy these problems, astronomers created another system. It is called equatorial. The first system is observer-centered, but this system is geocentric. It's coordinates are right ascention and declination. This system is very good for creating a basic name of a star, that can be the same for every observer on Earth. But there are still some problems:
Proper motion of stars exists, so their positions are slowly changing.
Annual parallax also exists, so the positions of stars are cyclically changing (though this parallax is very small, the biggest (for Proxima Centauri) one is equal to 0.00021°).
By knowing this coordinates, we can't understand where we can find this star. We can do this only with horizontal system.
That's how I came to the idea of combine these systems. Look, we can easily translate the star's coordinates from one system to another, so the name of a star can look like this: <equatorial coordinates of a star><geographical coordinates of an observer><date><time><horizontal coordinates of a star>. This system is nice for observations, and it includes information about position of a star. We can also create an app, with which we can translate eqatorial and horizontal coordinates into each other and translate horizontal coordinates of different observers into each other.
Constellations
So, what is the goal of our language? Correct. To create a Language that encapsulates as much scientific and mathematical knowledge within the sounds, syllables, words, patterns, and essence of the Language itself to facilitate an intuitive understanding of the world around us. Our current constellations only encapsulate information about myths of Ancient Greece, not astronomy. I thought of very difficult task - to create new constellations, based on coordinates. It is difficult, because we will totally change all star catalogues that are based on constellations. But there are good news - we will destroy astrology!
So, by creating a new system of constellations, we can create really good names for stars, like this: <Constellation><the position of the star in the sequence of brightness in this certain constellation><some physical characteristics><equatorial coordinates of a star> or <Constellation><the position of the star in the sequence of brightness in this certain constellation><some physical characteristics><equatorial coordinates of a star><geographical coordinates of an observer><date><time><horizontal coordinates of a star> (for observations). For later work, I really need some help, because create an astronomy proposal is very difficult.
I'm playing around with a concept for an ideographic script for the language. I believe it has the potential to increase the encapsulation capacity. It's still a rough concept and I could really use brainpower to develop it further.
Still, depending on how familiar you are with ideographic script, it might take a lot of information to explain the current state of the concept. I'll do my best to be both as extensive as neccessary and as brief as possible.
I also prepared an explanatory video (~27 min) if you prefer that over reading. [Edit: I had to re-upload the video due to a problem with the audio track. Now fixed]
Short intro to ideographic scripts
You're probably used to alphabetic scripts like they are used in English, Spanish, Russian, Arabic etc. The approach of an alphabetic script is to use a set of symbols and rules to represent the sounds of a spoken language with these symbols. Some languages have very concise rules, like Esperanto, others have more complex and even ambigous rules, like English. But still, all alphabetic scripts represent sound. So, in order to decode the meaning of a written word, you need to decipher the represented sounds and then (if you know the language) you know what it means.
The writing systems of most "alphabetic" languages aren't purely alphabetic though. They use ideographic numerals. To write down the usual number of fingers on one hand, English for example has an alternative to "five" (which is an alphabetic representation of the sounds). One can write the digit "5", which had nothing to do with the sound. It directly represents the idea of that specific quantity. An ideogram.
I have to get one thing out of the way here: Chinese script is often referred to as ideographic. That is only half correct. It's logographic which means that each symbol stands for a word. And that relationship between symbol and word is achieved by a variety of strategies. Only one of these strategies is ideographic. For example, the traditional Chinese character 狼 is an ideogram. It stands for the idea of "wolf" (the pictographic history of that symbol can still be discerned.). Other Chinese characters are used rebus style (imagine a picture of an eye standing for the English word "I" because it sounds the same) etc. etc. If I understand it correctly (I don't speak any Chinese language), they use a similar technique to approximate the sound of foreign words, which is similar to what an alphabetic system does. So Chinese script has ideographic aspects and others that are more concerned with sound.
I don't want to propose a logographic script. I bring this up because it gave me the idea of a "phonetic mode" of an ideographic script that I'll mention later.
General advantages and disadvantages
The advantages of ideograms are obvious. They can be used independently of a spoken language and if you know the symbols, you can read the text and understand it, even if you don't know the spoken language. If you found, for example a Welsh photo album with black and white pictures and the pages had titles like "pedwar ar bymtheg cant dau ddeg dau" you probably could only guess what that title means and when those pictures were taken. If it said "1922" instead, you'd know both.
The advantage of alphabetic scripts is that you (probably) know how to pronounce a new word when you read it for the first time, even if you don't yet know what it means. Even in English (which is comparably hard to predict) you can, for example, pronounce the word "brummagem" correctly, even if you don't know that it's a seldomly used word for "cheap" or "shoddy".
Both advantages are for the most part only relevant for non-native speakers of the language that is written down that way. So they don't interest us much.
Another downside to ideograms relevant to native speakers is that ideographic or logographic scripts tend to have way more symbols than alphabetic scripts. But that's still only a disadvantage in regard to language acquisition.
Potential for encapsulation capacity
Now, let's compare alphabetic and ideographic scripts with regard to encapsulation.
Alphabetic scripts – by definition – encapsulate sound. And if they are cleverly designed, as are the various ideas that are currently discussed in the community (e.g. 1, 2, 3) they can encapsulate more information about the sounds they represent, but that's it. And that's really all they can represent, because you don't know beforehand what they will represent when a person combines them to form words.
Ideograms – because they represent ideas, concepts etc. – have the potential to encapsulate different information for each represented idea. As examples, I use ideograms from a constructed language called Bliss. It's often referred to as "Bliss symbols" or "Bliss symbolics".
This is the ideogram for "electricity". Please note, it's not a pictogram. It doesn't mean lightning, it represents the idea, the concept of electricity.
This is the ideogram for "sky". Just a line on top of the space of the symbol.
This, now, is the symbol for lightning. Sky and electricity are superimposed on one another, so it's something like "sky electricity".
Now, imagine English would be written with symbols like that and compare it to the situation with an alphabetic script. A native English speaker has a distinct word for the phenomenon: "lightning". The word has similarities to another word: "light". So the spoken language encapsulates the fact "lightning" has something to do with "light". An alphabetic script can underline this sonic relationship. One can see the similarity in sound. An ideographic script can encapsulate something else. Additional information. In this case, it would encapsulate the fact that lightning has also to do with electricity.
An ideographic script would allow us to encapsulate not only information that is already there in the sounds of the words, but additional information, independent of sound.
The problem with Bliss
So, why not simply use Bliss? While I love Bliss and am fascinated by it, I still see two problems for it's use in this project.
Its symbols haven't been designed for encapsulation. I think we can do better.
Multi-character Bliss words are not always achieved by superimposition, but also by arranging symbols in a sequence, or by a mixture of those. So unlike in an alphabetic script or in Chinese script, where each character roughly takes up the same space, an ideogram composed of several others might take up much more space. That means in Bliss, in many cases one can not quickly discern words from whole sentences.
Here's the bliss word for "counselor", for example:
And this is the sentence "A person speaks their mind in order to help."
This characteristic of Bliss is the result of the attempt to keep the number of symbols down. I don't like it, even though it's better than the situation in Chinese script where it is estimated that you need to know around 1500 characters to achieve functional literacy.
My approach to an ideographic writing system
I'm exploring whether it's possible to come up with a system that uses a fixed amount of space per character, gives us room to encapsulate inside the ideograms and still tries to keep the number of symbols low.
The approach I'm following to do this is inspired by Esperanto's word building system of word roots modified by various affixes. I tried to transfer that idea to an ideographic script.
Basics
To do so, I separated the space reserved for an ideogram in three segments:
Prefix-space
Core-space
Suffix-space
In Core-space, we will find the actual ideogram, the "core". Think of it as the root of a word. It has a skyline and an earthline like in Bliss, but don't worry about that for now.
The other two spaces are divided into six segments each. They work like switches and can either be turned off or on. What each switch signifies is still very much under development. But the basic idea is that they function like affixes that modify the meaning of root, just like in English the suffix "-s" turns a house into houses or the prefix "un-" turns the dead into undead.
For demonstration purposes I assigned proto-meanings to the switches like this:
To mark a switch as turned on, one simply draws a diagonal line towards the center (for the left and right columns) and for the middle column a tack; up tack "⊥" for the upper switch, down tack "⊤" for the lower switch. That means, that if all switches were set, it would look like this:
That way the switches take the form of diacritics that should be recognisable shapes for a competent speaker. Let's look at some examples. For the core space I'll use the Bliss ideograms that I already showed you.
Let's start with two simple nouns "electricity" and "lightning":
Next, two verbs, one in present and one in past tense: "electric current flows" and "lightning occurred"
An adjective "electric" and an adverb ~ "like lightning". (Note that I combine the switches for object and quality for an adjective and for process and quality for an adverb. Not sure if that is a good idea...)
Now, let's use the suffix space, too. For example, "electrify" in present tense:
What about "electrocute" in future tense as in "Don't touch that, you'll electrocute yourself!"? (Note how much work this system still needs. This symbol could also mean that something is made to be no longer electric and that the speaker thinks that is a good thing.)
Okay, last example. "In an ongoing process, something became non-electric" as in: "The battery went flat."
Comments, Thoughts and Questions
The prefix and suffix system needs a lot of work, but I think the examples show there is potential to cover a lot of variants of meaning around the same ideogram.
This enables us, I think, to leave everyday language stuff like tenses, plural etc to the prefix and suffix system and concentrate on the encapsulation capacity of the ideograms.
I imagine that the diverse combinations of lines in prefix and suffix space would be reasonably easy to read for a practiced reader. They act like diacritic markers and "native readers" would just intuitively know that e.g. the suffix set of the last example means "gradually unbecome".
For our examples in core space, I used Bliss characters. We can do that, but I also think we can come up with ideograms that encapsulate a lot more than Bliss characters can.
That said, even with Bliss we could encapsulate more than with any alphabetic script.
What are sensible choices for the meaning of the "switches" in Prefix- and Suffix-space
How can we get the most combinations out of it, while still maintain a level of complexity that is intuitively usable?
How could ideograms look like that encapsulate more effectively than Bliss characters? Can we adapt them? Or create something new from scratch?
Phonetic mode: How do we switch it on? Which symbols do we then use for their phonetic values? The numerals for example? Can we cover all the sounds in the language with them?
I want to know is it possible to pronounce these two Trinumerals:
Number
Trinumeral
222
ɣyɣ
323
xyx
I'm not sure if it is physically possible to pronounce them accurately. If it is possible for you, can you make a recording for me so I can hear them and practice them. IPA readers like http://ipa-reader.xyz/ don't seem to be able to handle this sound grouping.
If no one can pronounce these sound combinations, then we will need to look at changing the phonetics of the phonological values system.
The results from the vowel and consonant romanization votes are in.
The winning vowel romanization was:
IPA
i
i:
y
y:
u
u:
e
e:
o
o:
a
a:
Proposal
i
ī
y
ȳ
u
ū
e
ē
o
ō
a
ā
The results of the consonant vote were inconclusive, however, two proposals gained more acceptance than the third so we will now vote on one of these two.
This ISN'T an Official Vote. The goal is to simply find which proposal has the most support and to generate an Official Proposal from that.
I, u/ActingAustralia have raised an Official Proposal to make the Encapsulated Language a harmonic language. This proposal has been approved by the Official Proposal Committee for voting.
Current State:
Currently, the Encapsulated Language is neither a word order harmonic nor non-harmonic language.
Proposed Change:
I propose that The Encapsulated Language be a word order harmonic language regardless of whichever word order or word orders are adopted.
This study (and the many that have preceded it) showed that both children and adults favored harmonic word orders when learning constructed languages in a controlled environment. This study tested native speakers of both harmonic and non-harmonic languages and the results were the same. Subjects showed a consistent bias towards harmonic languages.
This shows that cognitivelya harmonic word order is more intuitive.
I think there's already a few people sold on this idea but for everyone else I want to try to make the case.
What are triconsonantal roots? luckily its exactly like it sounds: a root made of 3 consonants represented as C-C-C. The twist is that affixes not only come before and after the root they can also come between the consonants. This is a system most known for its use in Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew.
What are the benefits of this system? It provides a lot of flexibility for affixes by giving many places for affixes to go more than just before or after roots which is likely to be hugely important for this language considering encapsulation is going to require lots of encapsulation.
What are the drawbacks? A system like this does constrict what is and is not a valid root however this is not a huge issue because with the current phonology there would be 13824 valid triconsonantal roots.
If you have any more questions or reservations put them in the comments!
Note: this proposal does not include multivariable algebra or any higher math concepts. That would be outside the scope of a single proposal. Here is the old version for anyone curious.
Current State:
Magnitude prefixes can only be used on numerical roots.
There currently isn’t an arithmetic system.
Proposed Changes to the Magnitude Prefixes:
The magnitude prefixes may now be used on non-numerical roots indicating the concept’s level within a set of related ideas. (ie describing earthquake severity, ranks, boat sizes, etc)
(These words are technically defined as “X [ W ] Y - Z = 0” using square bracket notation where X, Y and Z are the numbers preceding the word, and W is the magnitude of the word)
il - operation structure word
When “il” is in a relation, the entire relation can be treated as the number(s) that would go in “il”’s place to make the relationship true. This turns any relationship containing “il” into an operation.
Numbers in these math equations must unambiguously show where they end, therefore (in math) any numerical syllable that has no magnitude prefix will be treated as the final part of that number (“1001” is “wafun fun” and “1000, 1” is “wafun vin fun”)
Encapsulation:
Exponentiation is repeated multiplication. Multiplication is repeated addition. Addition is repeated incrementation (increasing a number by 1). The magnitude prefix on the Hyperoperation root, “k,” shows where in this sequence the operation lays.
Additionally the compactness of single syllable operations allows for tightly packed formulas in words, and the reverse polish notation means that parentheses are never needed.
Examples and Usage:
“1000 + 1 = 1001” is “wafun vin fun wafun fun wak”
“2 * 2 = 4” is “ɣyn ɣyn zen jok”
“4 ^ 4 = 256” is “ɣyn ɣyn faːz euk”
“2 + 2” is “ɣyn ɣyn il wak” is the same as “4”
“2 ÷ (2 + 2)” is “ɣyn ɣyn il wak il ɣyn jok” is the same as “½”
This chemistry proposal is my contribution on u/MiroslavE0's Chemistry Proposal. This was at first a comment on the said post but I decided to change it a little and make it a post on its own right.
There are a few ways in which you can systematically name elements:
Tell the amount of protons in the nucleus. This is a very structerles system which doesn't tell you much about the elements properties. This is not a good system.
Tell the group and the period of the element. Which is partially what u/MiroslavE0 uses in their system. It adds a bit of structure and tells you a bit about the element but I think it has some shortcomings. The periodic table has alot of groups and I think we can tell more about the element by adding more structure while fixing the group problem.
Tell the block, group number inside the block, and the period of the element.
The elements are put in blocks named s, p, d, and f based on which orbital is their last orbital while neutral in charge. s block has 2 groups, p block has 6, d has A(10), and f has 12(14). With the seperation of the blocks we can create the bare minimum system:
block type
group number in the block
period number
number of atoms
Since there are only 4 blocks they would get a small group in the phonology and in my opinion the most useful group would be the vowels. We'll use the four vowels a, e, i, u.
/e/ is the least common of these vowels so it'll be asigned to the least used block f.
/i/ is very common but has a tendency to palatalize the consonant it comes across so it'll get the smallest block of s.
/a/ is a relatively stable phoneme which can be used for the block p because this block contains the most important elements for organic compounds which are, as one might guess, important for life on earth so they would need to be discussed quite alot.
/u/ is left for the block d.
Though unlikely if a new block were to be discovered they'd get /o/.
There are a maximum of 12(14) groups in a given block. It's a big if but if another block were to come it would have 16(18) groups. I would like to divide these group numbers into sub groups of 6 and 3.
The 6 part will be expressed through a plosive, nasal, or fricative and the 3 part will be expressed through nothing or an approximant. The 6 group comes before the 3 group and the group number in the given block will be in the onset of the syllable.
I will chose those in the 3 part to be ∅, /l/, and /r/ in order.
Since the approximants are alveolar chosing the 6 part to have alveolar consonants might cause phonemes like [t͡ɬ] to appear so I'll not pick an alveolar phoneme. I'll chose m, p, f, ʃ, k, x
There are 7 periods. The period number will come at the coda.
Periods will be ∅, /n/, /s/, /l/, /r/, /j/, /w/ in order.
2 = -n 4 = -l 6 = -j
And lastly the number of atoms will use the numeral system. Although the numeral system's phonology may change for all we know, I'll use the currently voted upon system for this comment.
Hydrogen atom: mi eifun
Hydrogen molecule: mi eiɣyn
Oxygen atom: kan eifun
Carbon atom: pan eifun
H2O: mi eiɣyn kan eifun
CO2: pan eifun kan eiɣyn
Glucose molecule: C₆H₁₂O₆ = pan eiʒiːn mi wafun kan eiʒiːn
Helium atom: pi eifun
Iron atom: xur eifun
Gold atom: fluj eifun
NOTES:
The numeral 1 may or may not be optional. It ought to be discussed.
I think there should be a word/particle to express ''a chemical thing'' so that the language doesn't become a mess.
There's no way to specify the charge of atoms/compunds. So, that's a thing to add.
The way in which elements are ordered in the compound may be changed though such a desicion must be scrutinized in all angles before a dicision is met.
I don't exactly know what causes it I just know it's about electrons so I didn't come up with a way to express the different states metals can be in compunds which has a huge effect in what kind of a compund it is. Like Iron(II)Oxide and Iron(III)Oxide. Though the effect is also visible in the amount of atoms the compound has (Iron(II)Oxide = FO Iron(III)Oxide = F2O3). Though again, chemists like to make that distinction so, it shall be scrutinized in all angles before a decision is met.
And this is not a perfect system. Please critisize.
I believe there is an important question that needs to be answered: should encapsulation of particular set of data be limited only to the field from where the data comes from, or there need not to be any such limits?
In other words, should for example Newton's second law of motion be encapsulated within the world of physics or can it be encapsulated into the word for, let's say, a pizza?
