In the Land of Invented Languages

There is an absurdity to Wilkins’s categorization of the universe that was best highlighted in an article by Borges titled “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins”:

These ambiguities, redundancies and deficiencies remind us of those which doctor Franz Kuhn attributes to a certain Chinese encyclopedia entitled “Celestial Empire of benevolent Knowledge.” In its remote pages it is written that the animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) suckling pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off look like flies.

 

Borges’s point is not to ridicule Wilkins’s attempt to impose a pattern on the universe (he later concedes that Wilkins’s is “not the least admirable of such patterns”), but to call attention to the hopelessness of all such attempts.

“It is clear,” he says, “that there is no classification of the universe not being arbitrary and full of conjectures. The reason for this is very simple: we do not know what thing the universe is.”

I thought it would be appropriate, in a slyly ironic way, to attempt a translation of these lines into Wilkins’s language.

This translation was no simple matter. The sentiment expressed in these lines is quite correct. In Wilkins’s tables I found arbitrariness and conjecture all around. He did not know (as we do not) what thing the universe is. But he took a heroic stab at it. Over the four days I worked on my translation, sly irony gave way to surprised admiration. As a language of its own, Wilkins’s work was unusable, but as a study of meaning in English it was brilliant.

I started by looking up the word for “clear.” Where, in the universe of ideas, might this one fall? What does “clear” mean, in the grand scheme of things? Well, lots of things. In the index I found over twenty-five options listed. Do you mean “not mingled with another”? Then see “simple.” Do you mean “visible”? Then see “bright,” “transparent,” or “unspotted.” Do you mean “as refers to men”? Then see “candid.” Do you mean “not hindered from being passed through”? See “accessible” or “empty.” Do you mean in the sense of “clear weather”? That would be El.VI.1 (elements > condition of the air > being transparent). “Not guilty”? That’s RJ.II.6 (relations, judicial > concerning proceedings > decision regarding party’s lack of transgression).

Near the end of the list I found the particular sense of “clear” that I was after: “not hindered from being known.” This entry referred me to two possibilities, “plain” or “manifest.”

So I turned to the entry for “plain.” It referred me to many senses I could reject—“simple,” “mean,” “homely,” “frank,” “flat-lands”—but two offerings seemed promising: “not obscure” and, once again, “manifest.” I was hovering over the right meaning area now, re-spotting landmarks and getting oriented.

“Not obscure” was located in the tables at D.III.9 (discourse > complex grammatical notions > concerning the form or signification of words, with regard to their understandability). Figure 7.1 shows that section of the table (presented with the first eight sub-subcategories condensed).

Here, as in the table of bodily functions provided in chapter 6, words are followed by a list of synonyms. Wilkins considered synonymy to be one of the defects of natural language—a rational language should be free from redundancy; it should have one word for one meaning. A particular position in his table of concepts would be represented by a single word, and he intended all of the synonyms listed along with it to be covered under the same word. For example, the word for position 9, big (pronounced “biguhw,” D = bi, III = g, 9 = uhw) would be used for this particular sense of “plain,” as well as for the synonyms that follow it—“evident,” “perspicuous,” “clear,” “express,” “obvious.”

 

Figure 7.1: Category IV (Discourse), subcategory III–condensed 

But some of the synonyms he lists are not strictly equivalent to the headword. “Explicate” is related to “plain,” but it is not quite the same. He intended these partial synonyms to be derived from the basic word by adding something he called “transcendental particles.” So “explicate” would be something like bilguhwwa—the addition of -wa at the end signifies “cause,” and the addition of the I after the first vowel signifies “the active voice.” To explicate is “to act to cause to be plain.” In any case, all the words listed at a particular position in the table are supposed to somehow express the same concept.

Here, “plain,” in its sense as the opposite of “obscure,” was listed with some synonyms that made me feel I had found the right place. I could substitute “evident” or “obvious” into my translation and feel pretty good about it: “It is evident that there is no classification of the universe.” “It is obvious that there is no classification of the universe.” Both of these seemed to mean the same thing as the original. Still, I took a look at “manifest,” just to be sure.

“Manifest” was located at TA.I.9 (transcendental relations of action > belonging to single things > pertaining to the knowledge of things, as regards the causing to be known). Figure 7.2 shows it in relation to the rest of its sub-table (condensed).

“Manifesting” (or bebuhw) also seemed to capture the sense I was after (and also included the synonyms “evident” and “obvious”). So which one would be best for this translation? Do I want to say, “It is [a feature of discourse in terms of its complex grammatical notions concerning the signification of words, with regard to their understandability, being the opposite of obscure] that there is no classification of the universe not being arbitrary and full of conjecture”? Or is it better to say, “It is [a transcendental relation of action belonging to single things pertaining to the knowledge of things, as regards the causing to be known, being the opposite of seeming] that there is no classification of the universe not being arbitrary and full of conjecture”? Is there any difference between these two? What was this sentence supposed to mean again? Wait, what does “clear” even mean?

 

Figure 7.2: Category III (Transcendental Relations of Action), subcategory I—condensed 

To get it right in Wilkins’s system is not just to discover how words correspond to other words, but to discover the true meaning of a word. The synonyms he lists are just other English words, with all their little defects and redundancies; it is the position in the table that really matters. It is the position that is meaning. I could see that “clear” corresponded to “evident” or “obvious,” but I couldn’t really say what it meant. I was losing my grip on the simple word “clear.” Only one word into my translation and my solid understanding of English was unraveling in my hands.

I took a break. Called a friend. Reassured myself that I could still speak English.

Then I returned to the original quotation (actually, the original original is in Spanish, and Borges uses notoriamente, “notably,” rather than es claro, “it is clear,” but let’s not even get into that). What does he mean to say? There is no classification of the universe that is not arbitrary and full of conjecture. All you have to do is look around a bit and you will come to this conclusion too. Not because these words are easy to understand (discourse > signification of words > not obscure), but because this is the conclusion the facts reveal to you (transcendental > causes itself to be known).

Yes, yes. I started to feel steady again. It was the second meaning, “manifest,” that best captured the intention of “clear” in this case. I felt more than steady—satisfied, in fact. It was a particular kind of satisfaction, the kind you feel when you’ve finally wrangled control over a wide range of linguistic shade and nuance. It was a familiar feeling. Where did I know it from …?

Then it hit me; I was using a thesaurus. Wilkins, without intending to, had invented the thesaurus.

I pulled down the old Roget’s and turned to “clear.” I perused the long list of senses, from “acquit” to “transparent” to “audible.” Wilkins had covered them all.

Now I must make an admission. I have always used a thesaurus in the way that most people use one. You go to the alphabetical index, look up a word, find some synonyms, and pick the one that best expresses the sense you’re going for. If you don’t see something you like, you look at the little number next to the closest sense, turn to the numbered list, and find more alternatives to choose from. You make a choice, stick it in your sentence,