Exactly, so words were created. And why should the production of the words be treated differently from values?
Why do we must (that’s what you said) use your “ethymology” system?
You must use an etymologically correct language, if you want everybody to understand eachother.
If you dont want that, then dont use it, and continue walking into the babel tower road.
Etymology is just a tool. If you want to open a can, you must use the open_can tool. And if you want people to be able to understand eachother, you must define words accuratelly, and words must include in their sound their own definitions. This is exactly where etymology stands.
OK so I don’t must use it. That’s fine.
“I dont must use it”. 
I dont understand the syntax. Is this a joke?
Do you mean I should not use it?
Let me conclude with that quote.
“The path to wisdom is the definition of terms.” – Antisthenes
DAO is not wise, because it does not define its terms accurately. It is a confused mixture of ideas and meanings, that everybody can understand them differently. If this flaw is not fixed, it will lead to incomprehension.
1 Like
It is a reference to what you said (you recurrently say things “must” do this, “must” be like this, … so I highlighted several times the must keywork during our answers for you to understand the point):
So when you add:
I answer, OK, that’s fine, “I do not have to”, “I don’t >>must<<” do anything, I am free to not be in the position behind your “if […]”.
So I am pointing out how much absolutist your propositions are. You regularly coin phrases of the form “things must be that way”.
I say no. Things never have to be “this way” or “this other way”. It always depends of the referential you evaluate things against. So if you evaluate words against the “demo definition of what should be a word and what it shouldn’t be”, then yes, of course, the definition of a word is what it “etymologicaly means”, because you chose this referential of evaluation.
But if you evaluate words against the “chinese definition of what is a word in the chinese language”, then they won’t agree with the fact “banana” is a word.
And of course I add that, if you don’t understand this point, then you probably should not use libre currencies because you deny the relativity principle.
Chinese have no etymology.
Chinese ideograms is only a written script, not a spoken language. Of course ideograms do not need an etymology, we can draw the object, we can see how the object looks like, and then everybody can sound that object however they wish. Chinese ideograms is the same idea used by the Egyptians 2000 years before, with the hieroglyphs.
It is a smart idea in order to solve the problem when people speak different languages, or sound the same object differently, and thus misundestand eachother. But unfortunately we can only use it when writting, and not when speaking. And of course we can only draw objects, not meanings. A meaning cannot be painted.
But where did you find a phrase of mine saying anything about Chinese and etymology? Are you are trying to confuse the exchanges?
I am trying to evaluate languages which have etymology, and languages which have not.
I thought you were using chinese as a paradigm of a written script that can be used in order to solve the misunderstanding issue of the babana and butter. Which is the case, because the ideograms and the ieroglyphs solve that problem. they draw the banana, so everybody can see it is a banana.
Unfortunately this only applies to simple objects like the banana and the butter. A meaning cannot be painted, so for complex meanings we still need etymolgy in order to be able to understand eachother.
It is really funny to see how, systematically, you workaround questions you bug against. I repeat: where did you find a phrase of mine saying anything about Chinese and etymology?
And, as of course I haven’t made such a phrase and I expect you to see it, could you please read again my above answer and agree or not about the relativity principle, and the fact we can choose to use your etymology system or not.
C’est marrant de voir comme, systématiquement, tu contournes les questions contre lesquelles tu bug. Je répète : où as tu vu une phrase de moi disant quelque chose à propos du Chinois et de l’étymologie ?
Et, comme bien sûr je n’ai jamais fais de telle phrase et que je m’attends à ce que tu t’en aperçoives, pourrais-tu s’il-te-plaît lire de nouveau ma réponse ci-dessus et dire si tu es d’accord ou non sur le principe de relativité, et donc le fait que l’on peut choisir d’utiliser ton système d’étymologie ou non.
C’est une référence a ce que tu as dit (tu répètes sans arrêt des choses comme “doit” faire cela, “doit” ête comme ça, … et donc j’ai surligné plusieurs fois le mot clé doit durant nos échanges pour que tu comprennes ce point) :
Et donc quand tu ajoutes :
Je réponds, OK, ça me va bien, “je ne sus pas obligé”, “Je ne dois pas >>obligatoirement<<” faire quoi que ce soit, je suis libre de ne pas être dans la position de ce qui se situe après “if […]”.
Et donc je pointe à quel point tes propositions sont absolutistes. Tu nous sors régulièrement des phrases de la forme “les choses doivent être comme ceci”.
Et je réponds non. Les choses n’ont jamais à être “comme ceci” ou “de cette autre façon”. Cela dépend toujours du référentiel dans lequel tu évalues les choses. Donc par exemple si tu évalues les mots dans “la définition de demo disant ce qui est ou n’est pas un mot”, alors oui, bien sûr, la définition d’un mot est ce qu’il “signifie étymologiquement”, parce que c’est le référentiel d’évaluation que tu as choisi.
Mais si tu évalues les mots dans “la définition Chinoise de ce qui est un mot dans le langage Chinois”, alors ils [les chinois] te répondront qu’ils ne sont pas d’accord avec toi sur le fait que “banane” est un mot.
Et bien sûr j’ajoute que, si tu ne comprends pas ce point, alors tu ne devrait probablement pas utiliser de monnaie libre car tu refuse le principe de relativité [à travers tous ces “doit” que tu proclames].
Pourquoi les chinois ne sont pas d’accord avec moi sur le fait que “banane” est un mot?
Qu’ est ce que c’ est “banane” pour le chinois? Une phrase? Je ne comprends pas.
la définition d’un mot est “ce qu’il signifie étymologiquement”, seulement pour les langues etymologiques.
Pour avoir la définition des mots dans toutes les autres langues, if faut les decrire, parce que si tu ne les decrit pas, le mots sont seulement des sons, et chacun donne a ses sons un concept different.
Soit un mot quelconque : M(x)
La définition D[M(x)] de M(x) est aussi composée de mots M(i) :
S1 = D[M(x)] = M(i1) + M(i2) + … + M(in)
Or donc il existe S2 = D[M(i1)], D[M(i2)], … , D[M(in)]. Le nombre de mots M(x) étant fini, l’ensemble des définitions de ces mots D[M(x)] étant elle-même finie, cette série Sn a une limite finie pour n fini au delà de laquelle elle boucle sur une définition autorécursive.
Donc que signifie in-fine Sn = D[M(x)], auto-récursif, donnant une suite de définition de mots, composée de mots, donnant à nouveau une suite de définitions de mots, à part rien du tout ?
Conclusion : la croyance en l’existance de la définition des mots par d’autres mots est une boucle de raisonnement autorécursive dénuée de tout sens. CQFD
In a etymologically correct language there are of course some initial words that are sounds, nobody denies that. So there is nothing autorécursive.
Τhis the meaning of an etymologically correct language. With very few initial meanings that are (of course) sounds and cannot be defined, and by using a smart syntax, to be able to create the rest of the words.
If you speak such a language you get used to hear words as meanings and not as sounds, which is a brain function. And because words are meaning and not sounds, there is no misunderstanding.
Same demonstration, replacing D[M(x)] by Sound[M(x)]. CQFD.
Yes, I can make phrases like this too:
- the definition of a word is “what it programmatically means”, only for programming languages
- the definition of a word is “what it legaly means”, only for legal languages
- the definition of a word is “what it technically means”, only for technical languages
- the definition of a word is “what it demo-tically means”, only for demo languages
- the definition of a word is “what it banana-tically means”, only for banana languages
This definitely makes sense, but I wonder where this leads us.
Also, I wonder why you take a particular attention to etymological languages and not the banana ones.
Very bad idea! 
If you tottaly replace the definition of words with just sounds, then nobody will understand anything!
You must use D[M(x)] if you want people to understand eachother. You must define the words somehow. Otherwise we are not talking about a reasonable conversation among people, we are talking about music!