Re: Comparison of philosophical languages

Andrew Nowicki wrote:

> Any tool can be compared to other tools.
You're about 2 centuries out of date for
comparing languages in this way.

> I would
> like to know what features of a general
> purpose spoken language are desirable.
They all are. Go find a book that explains them
to you.

> Some spoken languages are
> better than other spoken languages.
Your attitudes are way out of date, pal. You read
like some 19th century British review of world
cultures.

> Some systems
> of measures are better than other systems of
> measures.
Not at all. You're trying to make judgements
about things that really can't be judged that
way. We just had a long harangue about "better"
measurement systems. All the energy expended
served to prove only that neither system is
inherently better, easier or any other
superlative you'd care to attribute. Same goes
for languages. No language is in any way "better"
than another. We may have preferences, but that
is a matter NDG.

> If we had been talking about systems of
> measures I would certainly say that the
> metric system is superb to other systems.
And you'd be 100% wrong once again.

> The flamers
> in this thread imply that we cannot compare
> languages.
Excuse me, sir, _you_ are the one that came in
here with the attitude and the galaxy sized ego.
I am so sorry if folks here try to puncture it
for you!

I'm sure it won't sink in, if you even read this,
but those "flamers" are correct. You can not make
a sensible comparison in the way you suggest.

> Just because *they* cannot compare
> languages does not mean that languages cannot
> be compared.
Ah, it's a congenetital condition you have then.
Sorry to hear it. Perhaps you should seek the
attention of a medical expert - oh, but what kind
of "medical expert" to seek after...?

> > Is it difficult to tell these words apart?
Not at all. If you'd listened, this aspect was
clearly explained to you. The _content_ of the
word is contained in succinct, discrete roots.
The similar part in each word is a broad category
affix. In this case, -man = "doer of". You must
have missed the explanation of Mandarin vegetable
words.

> On the other hand the English language has
> some
> nasty near homonyms: She sells sea-shells. I
> had a hot hat on my head.
Where are the homonyms? Even near ones? Anyway,
this list is tame compared to the Igididigity
lists, which are _all_ bloody near homonyms!

> Another flaw of the English language is that
> a
> novice listening to a fast speech cannot tell
> where one word ends and another word begins.
And igididigity helps in what way? And what makes
you think this is different in any other language
you might care to learn?

> If the flamers are right, the English
> language is impossible to learn,
I am not sure where you got this from! _Please_
tell us where you read this!

Also, please tell us who these "flamers" are that
are telling you these things? I've been the most
in your face (and if you think _that_ constitutes
flame, please don't set foot in Usenet!); but I
haven't said any the things you claim have been
said. Also, with the attitude you brought in
here, you deserve getting shot down in a hail of
verbal flack. Time for a tactical retreat, pal.

> and the most random languages are the best
> ones.
You must have been paying attention to a
different thread. Are you _sure_ you have the
right address?

Padraic.


=====
ay aci kes? ao o may mech? si ay 'ci kes, feri kes;
si nay ne kes mech, feri que láes!




.

Reply