I've been working on a graphical writing system that I call Maegrashoda, on what the possible phonetics of the language could be. Admittedly the phonetics of the language won't work all that well as it's a sign language that's Derrida inspired and so isn't phonocentric. Because the language begins with signs and symbols rather than phonemes, the symbol set is strictly larger than the possible ways that your tongue can move and you may also have situations where symbols that are used in conjunction quite often would require your mouth to move in ways that would be impossible so close together. The precedent of the symbol set makes it so that the phonemes won't work. All that being said here are the symbols.

The idea here is to make a graphical language that is as simple as possible in order to make it so that people can write languages in such a way that they can communicate with each other regardless of what their own written language is. Perhaps not all that important given that there are multiple programs online that will do language conversion for free - rather the point here is to see if I can find a symbolic root of language. This could be useful not only in programming languages but also in artificial intelligence where you might be able to teach a computer to convert visual images into a symbolic language that could also be understood by human beings. Seeing as children often learn through the visual field this could be useful in - say - converting large amounts of driverless car data into symbols that then could be used to teach artificial intelligence how to match symbols together to form sentences, rather than being mere stochastic parrots. However, I'm gettting ahead of myself.

The five symbols correspond to grammar, subjects, verbs, adjectives, and objects. I make the argument that these are the only five types of symbols that you need to make a language. Were that I had a backend capability (I don't at the moment) I would be able to make a program where a user could define their own symbols, the language is generative so you define words as you write and then use commonly used characters as well. However, I don't and so what I'm doing is that I've been making the symbols in pixelart and then saving them which is unfortunately a bit time consuming. As a symbol space, a 50x50 pixel art image is 2^2500 possible combinations of symbols (fewer that are recognizably different by a person), so even a small symbol is useful. QR codes are and have been a thing for a while. Again, the point here is to create a language that is understood by both a computer and a human.

I'll save the philosophical basis for another section, although it is related to phenomonology and what I think about the world more generally, and focus on this page on the system itself. Which I'll be adding a bit to every day until I have the entirety of the language. It's not large, it's just a bit of a pain in the ass in order to get all the symbols uploaded and written out. There are a couple of interesting examples that I have as well, which include the definitions of truth, law, chaos, pattern, the solution to Bertrand Russel's paradox, two cartouches and a couple of other examples. It uses set theory which I'm rather fond of as well as recursion. The grammar is similar to a LISP with generics.

The first set of characters is grammar (the "Ma"). These characters are grammatical rules that should be familiar to anyone that has some experience with computer science. A couple of examples should make this more clear if it isn't already. In addition to logical operators, there are a couple of characters that are used to define new characters, either new grammatical rules themselves, or new characters of the other four types. It should be understood that every symbol is a set. This should make sense and is one of the foundational principles of the language. The reason why is that every word itself can be broken down into a set of characteristics of that word which are included in its definition, until you get to complete semantics or definitions of what is "is" (which results in Being which is part of the philosophical and phenomenological context that I won't go into here). An example would be a "cat" would include its definition the sets "four legged, furry, has two eyes" and so on (I ignore the cynical argument that you can shave a cat mostly because "shaved cat" is a subset of cat itself - it's not important so much as what exists as what we think of when we think of the word - we are thinking in terms of subjective thoughtforms as opposed to objective reality - I make the argument that objective reality is a subset of the intersection of subjective thoughtforms in the philosophy section - as of this writing it is yet to be written here).

Here are the grammar rules.

- the "and" operator

- the "or" operator

- variable operator (when defining grammar)

- definition operator (for non-grammatical characters)

- variable operator (when defining non-grammar)

- such that

- sufficiently close to such that two variables are similar

- the "not" operator

- a generic operator meaning "a set"

- implies

- contained in (another set)

- item contained (in this set)

- definition operator (for grammatical characters)

Broadly speaking those are the only grammatical rules that you need. Which is why the language is so powerful. Its' simplicity means that you can add new rules to define new grammar if you need, but it's not a requirement for the language to make sense. Yes, binary is most likely the simplest of all possible languages. I believe for human language this may be the simplest that can be read and understood. And it has some useful definitions and grammatical constructions that come out of it as a result. Most of the operations have a basis in set theory in terms of the mathematical basis for writing the language, whereas the structure is defined as a list similar to the LISP syntax. If you're looking at Heidegger's Being and Nothingness (which I disagree with in almost its' entirety save the bit about phenomenology) somewhere in the opening chapter he wishes for an ideal philosophical language to express phenomenology itself, which I believe this is the current closest. The "ideal language" has been something that philosophers have been looking for since philosophy began so I'm not picking on Heidegger in particular.