Private Languages
January 2nd, 2008

Private Languages

Artists are not the only ones to invent personal languages and mythologies.

The text of this installment is taken from the start of a poem in my Bellwethers series, Noctilucent. It also appears in the zine with the dandelion lady on the cover, and you can get a copy of it if you email me.

Transcriptorial: I have invented languages / to speak them and not be understood.

RSS feed | Trackback URI

17 Comments »

Comment by skittisheclipse
2008-02-01 17:17:53

I’ve invented alphabets, so I can write and not be read.

Comment by somerled
2008-02-01 17:20:29

You’ve invented threads, so you can weave without being woven.

 
 
Comment by Cathy Subscribed to comments via email
2008-02-17 15:43:25

I can’t seem to get enough.

I saw your banner on a softer world

and I clicked it…

I’m glad I did.

Comment by somerled
2008-02-20 23:06:18

Awesome. Then I’m glad you did, too.

 
 
Comment by Brandon
2008-02-24 12:55:28

I speak a language that not even I understand

 
Comment by Madness
2008-03-09 14:06:17

Most have a need to remain a mystery to others – to create an illusion of individuality only by a knowledge gap.

Guess what, guys and gals? Probability ruins just about all of that.

Comment by Almost
2008-03-12 20:05:39

Could you explain how, Madness?

Comment by Madness
2008-03-14 08:45:26

I can try.

Quantum Mechanics teaches us that the only values we can measure are Averages. Before the measurement is done, to check a certain theory one must put together a “Wave function” – something that clues us in about what we can *expect* to find.

I think this is true even beyond QM. Any gaps one has in their knowledge is usually filled with assumptions. If someone leaves a gap in the picture others draw of them, they will simply get it filled by what these others would expect to find there. This “Expectation value” is the average of such qualities as found in the immediate surroundings.

So in effect, instead of differing themselves from others by being ‘mysterious’ and ‘obscure’, people simply get their image pushed towards the average.

Comment by Sarah Subscribed to comments via email
2008-03-14 19:27:19

In psychology it’s called a “closure illusion.” It’s generally referred to in regards to optical perception, but I can agree that it extends to thought processes and information assimilation as well.

 
 
 
 
Comment by Sarah Subscribed to comments via email
2008-03-12 11:04:54

I find this idea contradictory to what language actually is. Language is an agreement between people that give sounds and symbols meaning. Language is a tool to make the abstract into something concrete. If the language remains abstract, is it a language at all?

Comment by Almost
2008-03-12 20:15:41

Language is inevitably as much about disagreements as agreements.

I don’t think language is reliable enough to be thought of as a tool.

Purely abstract languages are still languages.

Can’t we have ongoing unreliable disagreements about imperceptible things? :)

Comment by Sarah Subscribed to comments via email
2008-03-12 22:46:10

A tool doesn’t have to be 100% reliable in order to still be effective. Yes, there are ideas and nuances to things that language can’t always properly convey, but enough of our ideas are capable of being expressed that the language is still effective. Yes, there are disagreements as to the meaning and intention of some words, but they are far outweighed by the agreements. I still have to disagree that a purely abstract language would still be a language. Language is meant to convey ideas to others. If nobody else can understand your ideas then how is it a language?

 
 
 
Comment by katie
2008-11-09 07:52:30

i’ve always had the suspicion that no one speaks the same language, that to each of us words have different meanings, and so no one is ever fully understood.

or maybe that’s just me.

Comment by Somerled
2008-11-09 11:39:09

It’s funny you comment here today, because I happen to be reading a lot of linguistics books and articles these days. There’s this joke, a passer-by tells a linguist “Good morning.” A couple blocks later the linguist is still wondering what he meant by that.

 
 
Comment by dave goodwin
2009-03-13 11:04:21

CRACK
No one will even remember his name
No real friends to mourn him now
That’s the way it is when you die in shame
Crack ! Heroin ! Cocaine !
Don’t put that poison I your vein
It will only drive you insane !
How many more will die in disgrace ?
Fated to die in shame
Wondering around lost in space
Crack ! Heroin ! Cocaine !
Don’t put that poison in your vein
It will only drive you insane !
Just another victim of smack ! or crack !
Found dead with a needle in his vein
Now he aint ever coming back !
Crack ! Heroin ! Cocaine !
Don’t put that poison in you vein
It will only drive you insane !
He now stands at heavens door
A lesson for all who remain !
Just another victim in this deadly drug war
Crack ! Heroin ! Cocaine !
Don’t put that poison in your vein
It will only drive you insane !
You don’t have to go the same way
Don’t be led by so called friends into drugs shame
More will die day after day !
Crack ! Heroin ! Cocaine !
Don’t put that poison in your vein
It will only drive you insane !
Read then understand my words
Then spread the message you have heard
Drugs aren’t welcome whatever their name
Crack ! Heroin ! Cocaine !
Don’t put that poison in your vein
It will only drive you INSANE .

DAVID BRIAN GOODWIN

 
Comment by Jx.
2009-03-15 00:19:13

I was on this amazing line of thought. I have a language. I tell you I love you with my eyes and you cant seem to understand it. Its okay. Ill wait. If you never understand or pretend not to, that is my answer in a nutcase.

 
Comment by ritz Subscribed to comments via email
2010-01-04 19:37:40

I have invented languages / to speak them and not be understood.

i don’t have to.

I am almost always misunderstood without even trying. :)

Hint: In a world of lies, honesty is the antithesis.

 
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.