Re: Comparison of philosophical languages
|From:||Sarah Marie Parker-Allen <lloannna@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, January 21, 2003, 23:50|
I wonder if they make any exceptions for us poor souls who regularly discuss
Nazis and/or Hitler as part of our ordinary list discussions (come play on
the Spanish Civil War discussion lists!) Or the guy I know (who is Jewish)
and insists upon calling himself the Grammar Nazi (guess what function he
serves in that group...)
Ahem. Anyway, this whole discussion reminds me of things I've heard about
Tolkien and the Elvish languages -- how all these decisions were made in
their language development because they had very specific ideas about what
constitutes beauty and perfection in a language. Whereas with my little
baby language (the Unnamed Language), the only consideration is brevity and
being able to distinguish the words while you're whispering to one another.
I think that we have to consider both Andrew and JRR Tolkien's aims as
inherently subjective -- you can't criticize them, really, because they
follow their own rules, and you can only discern THOSE based on the author
himself (or herself)...
Sarah Marie Parker-Allen
"There are some things that it is better to begin than to refuse, even
though the end may be dark."
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Godwin's Law: in a Usenet flamewar, when someone mentions the
> Nazis or Hitler,
> the debate is over, and whoever mentioned them first, loses.
> But I don't think we need to apply it strictly on this list.
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by SURFSIDE INTERNET]