New international language: Rodinian

[Systematiker]

To finish the Sapir-Whorf and other mentions... this project was part of my dissertation in one of the best unis in Spain and it got 99% mark. It included all this theory. Do you think expert people would give a 99/100 if things were made up or just wrong? or if they did not make sense? then think twice, it is all I have to say about this arrogance some people have sometimes.

That's a major fallacy. You aren't addressing the points brought up but attempting to say they are right because they are referenced by an authority on something. It's called an appeal to authority.

I'm not really on one side or the other in the debate about this language, and I've not looked at the language itself (though I've read this thread), but just because this is one of those things that bugs the philosophy prof in me...

Appeal to (or argument from) authority is only a fallacy if it's a non-authority in the matter at hand. It would be an informal fallacy if the expert in question were an expert on something else, but it's a valid argument for probability if a subject-matter expert is speaking to it.

Now, as Cainntear has pointed out, the marks at university may be an issue of broad knowledge and a well-argued standpoint. I just wanted to chip in on fallacies.

Carry on

Sorry, but I believe it remains an informal fallacy even within the body of knowledge of an authority. At least that is what Locke meant when addressing someone to respect and submit to an authority to accept the conclusion. While an authority might have a probability of truth, it lacks evidence of the actual authority's knowledge, particularly when it is an anonymous entity and/or as a body of 'wise men' [sic], nor has that body or anonymous individual been shown to actually support the conclusion at hand. These are broad-stroke appeals to anonymous authority because the OP got good grades on a thesis, not because of a statement directly from the horse's mouth.

(please to note my name dropping there. )

Splitting things here:
Ad Verecundiam can, per Locke, be misused, but it's inherently a statistical syllogism. See also http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority

In the case in question, I'd be more concerned about the connection of good grades to the correctness of the assertions than the anonymity, given the internet. I mean, unless you want everyone to dox themselves. We kind of have to give OP the benefit of the doubt that s/he did study at a particular, reputable faculty and got good grades, or we have to pretend that no one is an expert in anything.

[zenmonkey]

To finish the Sapir-Whorf and other mentions... this project was part of my dissertation in one of the best unis in Spain and it got 99% mark. It included all this theory. Do you think expert people would give a 99/100 if things were made up or just wrong? or if they did not make sense? then think twice, it is all I have to say about this arrogance some people have sometimes.

That's a major fallacy. You aren't addressing the points brought up but attempting to say they are right because they are referenced by an authority on something. It's called an appeal to authority.

I'm not really on one side or the other in the debate about this language, and I've not looked at the language itself (though I've read this thread), but just because this is one of those things that bugs the philosophy prof in me...

Appeal to (or argument from) authority is only a fallacy if it's a non-authority in the matter at hand. It would be an informal fallacy if the expert in question were an expert on something else, but it's a valid argument for probability if a subject-matter expert is speaking to it.

Now, as Cainntear has pointed out, the marks at university may be an issue of broad knowledge and a well-argued standpoint. I just wanted to chip in on fallacies.

Carry on

Sorry, but I believe it remains an informal fallacy even within the body of knowledge of an authority. At least that is what Locke meant when addressing someone to respect and submit to an authority to accept the conclusion. While an authority might have a probability of truth, it lacks evidence of the actual authority's knowledge, particularly when it is an anonymous entity and/or as a body of 'wise men' [sic], nor has that body or anonymous individual been shown to actually support the conclusion at hand. These are broad-stroke appeals to anonymous authority because the OP got good grades on a thesis, not because of a statement directly from the horse's mouth.

(please to note my name dropping there. )

Splitting things here:
Ad Verecundiam can, per Locke, be misused, but it's inherently a statistical syllogism. See also http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority

In the case in question, I'd be more concerned about the connection of good grades to the correctness of the assertions than the anonymity, given the internet. I mean, unless you want everyone to dox themselves. We kind of have to give OP the benefit of the doubt that s/he did study at a particular, reputable faculty and got good grades, or we have to pretend that no one is an expert in anything.

Anonymity I was speaking of was that of the experts of a school having or not having supported a statement and not that of the OP (his identity is readily available on the Internet - I don't consider him anonymous). He's also an airline pilot and not a university professor, so I stand by the following:

The OP states that his position on SW must be correct because he got good grades from a good school. The people grading his paper are all likely experts in body of knowledge that includes SW theory. They remain both anonymous experts and haven't been shown to actually have made any statement for or against SW. Perhaps he was graded on the historical accuracy of his presentation and the ability to be synthetic in representing what is SW and how it was developed.

On the other hand we could call to experts (university linguistic professors who went out in the field and analysed the Hopi language) that recently make claims that the SW position is highly overstated (and by the way, that original position was published posthumously (if I remember) without Whorf's ability to address or refine his position).

My entire position does not question whether the OP went to a good school and got good grades. I assume he did, and take his statement as factual. It's the 'these grades' somehow mean that (anonymous) professors agree with position on SW is correct (Do they actually state that? Published where?) and that SW theory is therefore true and unchallenged. It remains a fallacy a weak argument if the opposing positions (the contradictory authors I brought up) aren't addressed in content.

It isn't that we need to pretend that no one is an expert in anything - it is that if we want to use an argument of reference to authority (the expert said....) we actually need to demonstrate that the person is an authority on the subject and has actually made a statement on the subject matter.

[Rodiniye]

in reference to the last post

I think some people have mistaken my words about a degree or my project being part of a dissertation. My intention with those words are just a way of saying: this is not coming from a bored person laying on the sofa, it is something more. That's it. I am no expert, I probably don't know more than many of you.

Having said that, it has been a pleasure to share my work with you but I have decided to stop it for now. The general thinking is that it is an amazing artlang but probably not so good as an auxlang, so rather than wasting my time with some tweaking here and there I have cancelled the project for the time being. I have other things I will concentrate on, and probably think about new things. I have learnt that some things I considered very valuable might not be, and probably that these kind of things will be better working in a community, rather than myself alone.

Having said this, many people have approached me and have offered me help and or interest. The website itself got around 600 visits in just a few days with only 3-4 forums active, so thanks very much everyone. However, to be fair I was expecting better reactions overall. I failed and it is OK, I will move on.

I will probably start something else taking what people liked about Rodinian, but probably as well it will be in cooperation with other people. So if you are interested, PM me or write me: rodiniye@gmail.com.

For the new project I want to do something else. Something really based on every language, with fewer sounds, a lot easier probably, but with a bit of accuracy too.

It has been a pleasure!

[zenmonkey]

I'm sorry that is the conclusion you came to, I hope you adjust and, if you find your project useful, continue to drive it forward. Good luck on your projects.

[Systematiker]

....(too many embedded quotes)...



Anonymity I was speaking of was that of the experts of a school having or not having supported a statement and not that of the OP (his identity is readily available on the Internet - I don't consider him anonymous). He's also an airline pilot and not a university professor, so I stand by the following:

The OP states that his position on SW must be correct because he got good grades from a good school. The people grading his paper are all likely experts in body of knowledge that includes SW theory. They remain both anonymous experts and haven't been shown to actually have made any statement for or against SW. Perhaps he was graded on the historical accuracy of his presentation and the ability to be synthetic in representing what is SW and how it was developed.

On the other hand we could call to experts (university linguistic professors who went out in the field and analysed the Hopi language) that recently make claims that the SW position is highly overstated (and by the way, that original position was published posthumously (if I remember) without Whorf's ability to address or refine his position).

My entire position does not question whether the OP went to a good school and got good grades. I assume he did, and take his statement as factual. It's the 'these grades' somehow mean that (anonymous) professors agree with position on SW is correct (Do they actually state that? Published where?) and that SW theory is therefore true and unchallenged. It remains a fallacy a weak argument if the opposing positions (the contradictory authors I brought up) aren't addressed in content.

It isn't that we need to pretend that no one is an expert in anything - it is that if we want to use an argument of reference to authority (the expert said....) we actually need to demonstrate that the person is an authority on the subject and has actually made a statement on the subject matter.

Stated this way, I agree with you entirely

[mercutio]

I feel loads of people have given the poor original poster a hard time!

Why does do some people have to be so bitchy! Give the guy a break! I imagine it took ages to invent a language!

To the original poster: I know basically nothing about con langs but I recognise how complicated it must be to make! I hope you haven't been demoralised by people's negative comments.

Peace

[aokoye]

I feel loads of people have given the poor original poster a hard time!

Why does do some people have to be so bitchy! Give the guy a break! I imagine it took ages to invent a language!

From the original post:

I hope you can find this interesting, any comments are very welcome.

People have raised very valid points and have very logical concerns. Just because we aren't being rainbows and puppies doesn't mean that we're being bitchy.

[aokoye]

I think some people have mistaken my words about a degree or my project being part of a dissertation. My intention with those words are just a way of saying: this is not coming from a bored person laying on the sofa, it is something more. That's it. I am no expert, I probably don't know more than many of you.

Just a bit of quick advice that you can feel free to take or ignore. If you aren't an expert on something don't say, "I am kind of an expert in the subject." Saying, something along the lines of, "I'm really knowledgeable about X" would be much more accurate and would likely get your point across in a way that a. doesn't sound self aggrandizing and b. doesn't invite disbelief.

I actually do know a fair amount of people who are what I would consider experts in their (sub)fields and I the only time I've heard any of them call themselves that was when one of them was venting to me about someone not taking what she said seriously. Note - she hadn't told the people who weren't taking her seriously that she was an expert, though by virtue being a presenter at an international conference on the subject as well as her experience in the field that the people would have known about, it's clear that she is. The only other time was when a professor told us a story about being an expert witness, but that's the title of role that a person plays - he wasn't calling himself an expert.

[zenmonkey]

I feel loads of people have given the poor original poster a hard time!

Why does do some people have to be so bitchy! Give the guy a break! I imagine it took ages to invent a language!

To the original poster: I know basically nothing about con langs but I recognise how complicated it must be to make! I hope you haven't been demoralised by people's negative comments.

Peace

The OP is trying to create a conlang that will stick and asked for input. Conlangs are incredibly difficult to make succeed and generally do go through trial by fire of many sorts (political, linguistic, financial, etc...).
What may seem like a hard time is relatively reserved criticism on content, form or theory. Convince people with intense attachment to language learning that your idea has merit and you might get buy-in for them to learn it.

Here is the input from CCB http://aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6179 , is it that different?

[Xenops]

If he had changed his approach, the thread would only be two pages long:

"Hey guys, I've been working on a conlang for some time, and my goals are for this language to be easy to learn for anyone in the world, to be specific, and to not discriminate or be sexist. If you're willing to take a look, I want to know: would you, as an avoid learner of natural languages, be interested in learning this? Why or why not? What can I do to make it better?"

Only by reading his OP did I decide that I was going to disagree with everything he says.