Re: old clothing (was: Re: Language superiority...)

Sally Caves wrote:
> Nik, I don't think that "complex" and "efficient" are mutually exclusive
> terms.
Me neither, but all else being equal, less complexity can yield greater
efficiency - by which I mean the ability to communicate ideas rapidly
and with the least chance for errors.  But that's not what I'm aiming at
in W., I like unnecessary complexities (but not gratuitous - subjective,
I know).  Indeed, for greatest efficiency, there'd need to be a lot of
complexity.  A creole is more complex, and more efficient, than a
pidgin, for instance.  And both are probably more complex (and more
efficient) than a hypothetical H. erectus language (if they had
language).

My point is this:  All groups of humans are equal, therefore their
languages are roughly equal.  However, let's imagine that some group of
H. erectus had somehow survived, and that they had language.  Their
langauge would be very simple, perhaps a few hundred words, and maybe no
embedded clauses.  Our languages, on the other hand, are far more
complex, and more efficient.  They can communicate more ideas, and
communicate them more efficiently, with less chance for confusion.  If
there were a species more intelligent than ourselves, their language
would be more complex and more efficient still.  However, mind you, I
don't believe any such language exists on Earth, nor do I think that any
human being has sufficient skill to CREATE such a language.

--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Conlang/W.html
ICQ: 18656696
AOL: NikTailor