Motivations

• A Language for Writing
  
  • Non-linear Structuring
    All natural languages start with speech which is later transliterated, so they fail to take advantage of the 2-D, non-linear, structured communication that is possible on paper. See Fig. 1.
  • Speed and Beauty
    I do not consider these conflicting goals, because they can be combined in flowing letters which are consistent and for which one need never lift one's pen. All letters, I decided, should begin at the lower left and exit to the lower right, like this:
• A Rational Language
  
  • Minimal Arbitrariness
    Languages like Esperanto choose their words based on what other languages use, so that people will be used to them. If my language is going to use a given word, I want it to make sense why it be that word, as much as possible.
  • Rational "All the Way"
    Phoenician-dreived languages use letters which correspond only to sounds, not to meaning. The letter "b" has no inherant meaning, but it could. I wanted to explore this possibility.
  • Conceptual Syntax
    Noam Chomsky tells us that sentences have an underlying structure more sophisticated than the words themselves, and that the mind naturally decodes sentences into that structure-- so why not make that structure explicit in the language? See Fig. 2.
  • Phonetic Meaning
    There's a enormous amount of variety of the things that one does in pronouncing sounds. These can potentially correspond to the meaning of the words so pronounced.

Fundamental Elements

Objection: When you write these quickly, won't they be difficult to distinguish?
Response: Possibly. However, there are other languages where letters are distinguished by even more "insignificant" differences. I claim that these symbols are "as good as you can get", because each has a feature the others do not, and that people used to writing and reading this language will be sure to include and notice the appropriate differences.

One can also argue the thesis that all human communication is built around three fundamental concepts: the ideas of "I", "you", and "it", like Martin Buber's fundamental relations to the universe. Another way to describe this distinction is "this alone", "this in relation", and "that separate". This is one understand of a set more more general ideas which I can best suggest with examples, as used in language. In the table below, I match up the ideas to the symbols I use for them for future reference. The symbol-abstract matchings are arbitrary, but I think suggested by the shapes of the symbols.

Symbol	Person	Count	Case	Part	Voice	Tone	Tense	Mood	State
	I	single	nomative	verb	active	polite	present	indicative	definite
	you	dual	genitive	descriptor	reflexive	familiar	past	interrogative	conditional
	it	plural	accusative	noun	passive	indifferent	future	imperative	indefinite

I define these abstracts as the known, active, or direct; the observable or dependent; and the unknown or static.

Word Structure

Dictionary

Verbs

- to go	- to change	- to be able
- to know	- to communicate	- to opine
- to make	- to sense	- to have

- to act	- to reflect	- to react
- to do instantaneously	- to remember	- to speculate
- to isolate	- to bring together	- to delegate

Descriptors

- energetic	- skillful	- cautious
- known	- communicated	- regarded
- new	- appealing to the senses	- compound

- dynamic	- matched	- static
- instantaneous	- dependent	- extended
- contained	- combined	- subservient

Nouns

- movement	- difference	- existence
- idea	- interaction	- opinion
- perishable	- disturbance	- structure

- characteristic	- combination	- disjunction
- creation	- sensation	- posession
- subject	- quality	- object

Utilities

- this/here
- that/there
- that-over-there/over-there

- I
- you
- he/she/it

Quality
Tense	present	past	future
Voice	active	middle	passive
Mood	indicative	interrogative	imperative
State	Definitive	Conditional	Indefinite
Person	I	you	it
Count	singular	double	plural

[Tense - Voice][Mood - State][Person - Count]