David Bohm, theoretical physicist, near the end of his life, ditched his primary field of research (not entirely, of course) for a deep dive into language, and ended up working on developing what he called the rheomode, a verb based language that allowed the speaker to more accurately and reverently acknowledge the world not as a cluster of nouns, fixed and immovable persons places and things, but as existing in a continual state of process. The Algonquin family of languages was created similarly — they would never say, “there’s a river” they would instead say, “that water is rivering over there,” because they know it hasn’t always been a river and it won’t always be.
thank you, i'm glad it was of interest. wrt Bohm, I had heard before something about that, and it sounds interesting, and i also agree with the idea of 'process' rather than 'stasis'. BUT, and it's a very big one, the idea of developing a language seems to me to be completely missing the point, and it goes against my intuition of a primordial language, and our need to 'work with what we have', so to speak.
David Bohm, theoretical physicist, near the end of his life, ditched his primary field of research (not entirely, of course) for a deep dive into language, and ended up working on developing what he called the rheomode, a verb based language that allowed the speaker to more accurately and reverently acknowledge the world not as a cluster of nouns, fixed and immovable persons places and things, but as existing in a continual state of process. The Algonquin family of languages was created similarly — they would never say, “there’s a river” they would instead say, “that water is rivering over there,” because they know it hasn’t always been a river and it won’t always be.
Excited to read the next installment!
thank you, i'm glad it was of interest. wrt Bohm, I had heard before something about that, and it sounds interesting, and i also agree with the idea of 'process' rather than 'stasis'. BUT, and it's a very big one, the idea of developing a language seems to me to be completely missing the point, and it goes against my intuition of a primordial language, and our need to 'work with what we have', so to speak.
I await chapter one.