When introducing the technical side of my work, I used to lead with: “I’m designing an artificial language.” Now I lead with: “I’m designing notation for logic and linguistics à la the best mathematical notation: arithmetical, algebraic, etc.” I used to get bad reactions, and now I get good reactions. Why? I’ve been working on my artificial language, my logico-linguistic notational system, for a long time. I started in my late teens. In changing the term that I lead with from “artificial language,” which makes most people skeptical, to “notation,” which doesn’t, I didn’t change anything about the substance, about what I’ve been working on for so long. I just changed my strategy for explaining what I’m working on.

Why it worked to change the term:

1. It sounds utopian, even schizophrenic, to be serious about designing an “artificial language,” to seriously believe that designing an “artificial language” could revolutionize communication. By contrast, it sounds modest to say that you’re designing “notation.” It sounds scientific.
2. In designing an artificial language, it would be possible to prioritize the phonological and orthographical aesthetics, to prioritize making the artificial language sound and look beautiful. In designing notation, however, (a) there’s no phonology—the term “notation” refers to +, -, and other international written symbols, their countless spoken counterparts throughout the world (e.g., “plus,” “minus”) notwithstanding, for those spoken symbols aren’t notation but natural language—and (b) although it would be possible to prioritize the orthographical aesthetics, people associate the term “notation” not with art but with science. My project has no phonology, and my artistic vision for the orthography is secondary to my scientific vision. Thus, the term “artificial language” is more misleading association-wise, and the term “notation” is less misleading.