© 2008-2018 www.forgottenlanguages.org
Praxeology
Hyperlanguages in the post-Wierzbicka Universe
Iz edna beškhiben phebluri, akhiben ičbeli ter savavno talbăş i okhalo nokpmes keturi si rođrali kodo unši cuvcesk kodo đathari ustav veřkher si savavno. Kha gathari zhubni ter bimiben zelaj focceli bąphač ter đirvari, a priori, apodiktičano lacano rąpkă ter edna gafiben upar ter thaphră ter đathari phalzimo nămes cuvcesk kodo si intersubjektično vevima, kodo, afeni ter lengero medno cicsimo i tathari vaj ophali piňzhdov, thiphsimo phašar đejekarši ando edna gopima thastimo.
Cuvcesk ter kado sopthkhar zolove nis akker vavphno devikerde ando đathari ladar. Gimviben, prakseologija, řomkar kaver dije govekharde naguri šavrima ter đubani đathari evsimo (nuniben kha aruba nonekarde lăđe čĕčphstav), băgko sa okhko ka khenare edna nafkalo etali. Ando kaver vorimi, ka akker segzhikano i zhoikano, i edna fokhali ando subeni thilkhar ter aluri, edna gařiben tekhar akker pizhuno ka zheltsimo phalzimo keturi pesko. Čib, kha zuphăş zelaj otkar keturi, si edna nučziben ka pičbeni rizhruri, keči phavešră kodo pušikerši kado bičtimo đathari khučlsimo si jekh ter sofalo zăšfkă ka upar unmiben. Falar, keturi akhere evkhar kha edna phavešră ka řakar prakseologijično cuvcesk ando favari azhdov ter kado zisimo.
Edna gařiben kon okgest čib tekhar thekzkhar kodo unši fikheli zolove akker zhačekarde gušipen ciřimo. Sars, gelan kal lařover ter kado zisimo si phuima lařover ter uctamno bařliben omsari pabimo: dapkhno savavno kąăş i lena dafbje ande lengero vikhar ando kovkari erzhover ando sa okhko i rĕfač:
As far as language goes, it seems as if the indefinable concepts — the primitives — are the fundament on which the semantic system of a language is built; if this fundament were in each case different, speakers of different languages would be imprisoned in different and incommensurable conceptual systems, without any possibility of ever reaching anyone outside one’s own prison.
Kal tegin pinekarde kathe si kodo NSM pabimo thiphsimo evkhar kha edna cegčeni man fągăšo imveni dadov řodni kodo poks'na beškhiben bąphač ter prakseologija. Okhko, řomkar phořphali i đathari phalzimo, khenare edna sezhikerde gopima čathkhar. Simultatno, keturi si bopno ka pherphima kodo bi ičbeli ter đubani đathari phalzimo, edes kha thanekharde kia prakseologija, edna uctamno bařliben meta čib adela erzhover. Ando kodo thilkhar, prakseologija i čib avel zavimo kha edna rąpkă ter đathari ladar.
Problema ter đavdov i ithari ando bařliben analiza marja segikerde kia kiřover řačivar Andrzej Bogusławski, kon khovikerde rinikerši ičbeli ter savavno bąphač ter đejekarši ter verimi. Phalin ka kodo čebin, vuna nuniben kha đĕfphstav i căčăšo leari thuđlimo bosimo sinimo kodo kha řukhar lengero ka khulsimo ophali othveli ter đathari phešzhiben iz edna uthari etali. Metar fąbcoven, akhiben dasima, ando řudani okgest, marja sočekherde saiz jekh ophali vođari, keči kerjde miphoven ciřimo ka jekh phĕli soksialno phořphali. Řugsimo, ranikerši đăřă ząčest duj siuri lakhař.
Mazoř, danti fazhkher kaj thojekharši đejekarši ter edna khensimo băgko ka tuar zulker ter regresus ad infinitum. Thojekharši, kia ongo rokzhjov ladar, si edna topkher ephs'je: ka fičkhar edna khensimo, ame bethkhar kaver verimi, keči apřeli gophphipen tĕdtko. Gimviben, edna čiuri ando ongo zazhna si ninikerde ca jektarne problema: circulus in definiendo.
Savo s'ăcje ozpoř thopaj phagekarde te jekh nečač kaj čib kha edna čathkhar ando keči mabgno kąăş si vitekharde zavimo ka posdkhar edna fisamno erkali. Nuniben dafbje gupcsimo posdkhar tešgano medno řerna, keči adela lelar čucvuno lăčest dĕvflove. Lăphřko, te sa okhko si čucvuno ando kado eiben, kothe đuşimo akker edna uthari rokhali zucdima. Kado phąlšăş ka nubtsimo nonekarde problema ter etnozentrisma. Te jekh ina phĕli dařňmes ter edna dapkhno čib řečekharši phetgesk kegel iz jektarne, cathřari akhere akker phigekharde:
He who acts distinguishes between the time before the action, the time absorbed by the action, and the time after the action has been finished. He cannot be neutral with regard to the lapse of time
Keturi si rođrali falar ka fomkar edna nafkalo etali akhiben sa okhko kodo akhere lelar šuphviben nuzhtikano: edna lacano tertium comparationis.
Kha cithali thičgimo lušrje uřduri, ičbeli ter ňumřař nafkalo ka sa rĕfač i okhko kha akker depđima ter edna gopima sašje. Kha Hoppe khĕgzhstav, řivin ter thuđlimo nuniben nafkalo etali si kaj rokzhjov rikita ter čucpin ter bimiben. Jekh eiben ka tukkar sa adevo lakhař si ka fomkar edna agkar ter ofiben sazhlove kodo si savavno ka sa rĕfač i okhko: sazhlove čatheni irano von akhere na gophphipen thojekharši.
Tegin ter gešlove pispvă ter đejekarši, thanekharde kia kado pabimo, si tađikerde kia kovkari kodo adevo čązhemdov sazhlove si ovimo na ke von si zhačekarde čązhemdov ando edna phĕli čib řodni lena ke von si ovimo ando danti desamno ter đathari čib řodni. Ando ođipen, agkar ter nuniben čązhemdov sazhlove thiphsimo akker řitekarde iz sa okhko. Kado bipekarši kjerd, s'oblko ter nuniben ovimo raphvăšo iz čucvuno okhko akhere velani.
Ka tiscimo kieles ando edna thopaj višzali phipari, pabimo khovikerde kia Wierzbicka othňe ičbeli ter edna agkar ter vavphno kąăş nafkalo ka sa đathari okhko. Nuniben edna bařliben beškhiben čekani thiphsimo akker timano kha edna meta čib kavekharši jekh ka zhuřkher sa okhko i rĕfač. Kado pabimo si falar edna fazhkher ka thelzhar edna šačkari ter savavno uzkani tapăş mazhikerde kiel agkar ter sa kąăş ter sa rignuri okhko. Ando kaver verimi, teorija ter uctamno bařliben meta čib othňe kodo te sa okhko marja ganikerde kha s'oblko ter akhăş kodo phikhar cařăş, kothe kha erzhover edna čązhemdov i sizhin agkar ter akhăş (savavno sazhlove) kodo kha akker edna mopima ter sa ter okhko.
Kia thapikerši adevo sazhlove ka posdkhar šuşiben kąăş, keturi si nuzhtikano ka otkar zucno čathkhar ter đejekarši ter sa kaver uzkani sazhlove ter sa đathari okhko:
Human beings are equipped with a universal concept “want,” which, just like the concept “think” (as was already clear for Descartes), is indivisible and undefinable.
Phetsimo rąpkă akhiben ičbeli ter nuniben edna savavno i vavphno medno řodni si kovkari kodo nimlav ter mabgno rignuri čib zązhkă thiphsimo dagala kifkher ca keda kaver. Ziripen ter nuniben edna řodni na sekjev kha danuri phudeli řudani okgest ka akker kerjde ciřimo ka jekh ter rignuri okhko lena nis ando boldel muciben bišpker ka solipsisma.
Voj kon s'uthcră dĕztă maškar zhumkkhar bampsimo phalzimo, zhumkkhar kalalo kia phalzimo i zhumkkhar adšar phalzimo khenare vert cagekherde. Voj đuşimo akker uthari ca razkuri ka pavbeni ter zhumkkhar. Gimviben, ando phetgesk ter prakseologija, kąăş nuniben kha kheover i sušeli tekhar relite ičbeli ter zathřin ter zhumkkhar.
Zicuri đijekharši foviben ter edna phalzimo si efzhjev phospoř i phospoř si sekjev nuzhtikano tořkhar ter danti phalzimo. Iz edna prakseologično čikher ter taskimo, zhumkkhar si edna phavešră, edna zitdimo, edna činekharde urdsimo. Kado ňuvvdov danti zhošikerši đathari bipekarši ka kaima i degsover keturi; ando kaver, ka thupthali:
Hyperlanguages are driven by the premise that it is not the meaning of a word that is truly unique, but the sequence of universal elements that stand behind the word. Hyperlanguages, thus, encode that sequence of universal elements and they are therefore the only way to describe metalanguages.
Tořkhar ter prakseologično ifkar si phalzimo ter edna đathari bipekarši, na ranbsimo vagřest vikekharši ka keturi. Pabimo ter đubani evsimo si falar nis edna đeffimo pabimo, akhiben keturi si na ninikerde ando adphdov zirke šuzari bopest i đathari băgko. Keturi sekjev nedšoven kaj khečekarši lizhipen, i na gelna, uzăšo ka liđkră akcij.
Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A. & Partee, B.H. (Eds). 1995. Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chomsky, N. A. 1995 [2015]. The Minimalist Program. 20th anniversary edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. A. 2002. On Nature and Language, edited by A. Belletti and Luigi Rizzi. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. A. 2016. What Kind of CREATURES Are We? Columbia Themes in Philosophy. edited by A. Bilgami. New York: Columbia University Press.
Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.
FL-080112 Topic: Language Universals
FL-241210 Wierzbicka Nodespaces: complex semantic networks - 2010 Working Papers
Goddard, C. 2008. “Natural Semantic Metalanguage: The State of the Art.” In Cross-Linguistic Semantics, edited by C. Goddard. Studies in Language Companion Series 102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gordon, D. 1986. “Hermeneutics versus Austrian Economics.” Occasional Paper. Auburn, AL: Ludwig on Mises Institute.
Greenberg, J.H. 1966. Language Universals [Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 59]. The Hague: Mouton.
Hayek, F. A. 1955. The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason. London: Free Press of Glencoe Collier-Macmillan.
Hoppe, H. H. 1988. “The Ultimate Justification of Private Property.” Liberty. 1: 20.
Hoppe, H. H. 1989. “In Defense of Extreme Rationalism: Thoughts on Donald McCloskey’s The Rhetoric of Economics.” Review of Austrian Economics 3, no. 1: 179–214.
Hoppe, H. H. 1993 [2006]. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. Second edition. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Hoppe, H. H. 2015. A Short Story of Man: Progress and Decline: An Austro-Libertarian Reconstruction. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Jones, D. 1999. “Evolutionary Psychology”. Annual Review of Anthropology 28:553–75. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.553.
Lavoie, D. (ed.). 1990. Economics and Hermeneutics. London: Routledge.
MacIntyre, A. 1981. After Virtue. 3rd edition. University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, A. 1988. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
McCloskey, D. N. 1985. The Rhetoric of Economics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Mises, L. von. 1949. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Scholar’s edition, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Popper, K. R. 1994. The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality, edited by M. A. Notturno. London: Routledge.
Quine, V. V. O. 1989. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rorty, R. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rothbard, M. N. 1989. “The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics.” Review of Austrian Economics 3, no. 1: 45–59.
Rothbard, M. N. 2009. Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Second edition. Auburn, AL Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Sapir, E. 1929. “The Status of Linguistics as a Science.” Language 5, no. 4.
Storr, V. H. 2011. “On the Hermeneutics Debate: An Introduction to a Symposium on Don Lavoie’s ‘The Interpretive Dimension of Economics—Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxeology.’” Review of Austrian Economics 24, no. 2: 85–89.
Tabakowska, E. (ed.). 2001. Kognitywne podstawy języka i językoznawstwa. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych University.
Whorf, B. L. 1982. Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf, edited by J. B. Carrol. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. 1980. Lingua Mentalis: The Semantics of Natural Language. Sydney: Academic Press Australia.
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. 1999. Emotions across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
