10-01-2016, 09:09 AM
Peano (stops to look him up) is 19th century.
It's certainly not something that would be within the scope of 15/16th century linguistic ability.
In fact, to talk of "linguistics" for the era is ridiculous, such a concept simply didn't exist.
In brief, the generally accepted European ideal of languages in the early Renaissance was biblical. There was a True Language (as spoken by Adam and Eve) and this language was taken away from humans at the time of the Tower of Babel episode.
All known languages were thus assumed to be mere replicas of this perfect divine language, of which all humans could understand. The ancient languages were assumed to be closest to this first language.
Linguists thus tried to recreate this perfect natural language, glimpses of which were seen everywhere.
Our old mate Kircher summed up this search by saying:
I wrote an article on early artificial languages as seen through the eyes of Kircher You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
It's certainly not something that would be within the scope of 15/16th century linguistic ability.
In fact, to talk of "linguistics" for the era is ridiculous, such a concept simply didn't exist.
In brief, the generally accepted European ideal of languages in the early Renaissance was biblical. There was a True Language (as spoken by Adam and Eve) and this language was taken away from humans at the time of the Tower of Babel episode.
All known languages were thus assumed to be mere replicas of this perfect divine language, of which all humans could understand. The ancient languages were assumed to be closest to this first language.
Linguists thus tried to recreate this perfect natural language, glimpses of which were seen everywhere.
Our old mate Kircher summed up this search by saying:
Quote:“I have seen a complete crucifix in an agate-stone [..] in tufa rock I have seen a whole alphabet whose letters were formed of the veins in the stone [..] I once caught a butterfly on whose wings nature had accurately imprinted the face of our Saviour”.This was the difference in language that the early moderns had. They considered their day to day languages to be inferior human made constructs that were only temporary; God had a secret universal communication that he had hidden from us until we were wise enough to use anew, and they hoped to be able to discover it. It was the doctrine of signatures written into linguistic communication. The idea of deconstructing their vernacular and rebuilding it into an artificial language – such as Esperanto, for example – would have to wait until the 18th and 19th centuries.
I wrote an article on early artificial languages as seen through the eyes of Kircher You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..