Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Comparison of philosophical languages

From:Joe <joe@...>
Date:Monday, January 20, 2003, 21:34
On Monday 20 January 2003 8:14 pm, Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> I believe that any language is merely a tool that > should be discarded when a better tool is found. > Any tool can be compared to other tools. I would > like to know what features of a general purpose > spoken language are desirable. > > Some programming languages are better than other > programming languages. Some spoken languages are > better than other spoken languages. Some systems > of measures are better than other systems of > measures. If we had been talking about systems of > measures I would certainly say that the metric > system is superb to other systems. The flamers > in this thread imply that we cannot compare > languages. Just because *they* cannot compare > languages does not mean that languages cannot > be compared. > > Some spoken languages, for example Japanese, > resemble Ygyde and Ro in a sense that they build > compound words from short roots. Even the English > language has some of this ability: police-man, > fire-man, work-man, crafts-man, journey-man, > milk-man, gentle-man, noble-man, water-man, air-man, > horse-man, herds-man, boat-man, cave-man, sky-man, > country-man, woods-man, trades-man, yeo-man, > weather-man, gun-man, clergy-man, house-man... > Is it difficult to tell these words apart? > > On the other hand the English language has some > nasty near homonyms: She sells sea-shells. I had > a hot hat on my head. > > 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. > > If the flamers are right, the English language is > impossible to learn, and the most random languages > are the best ones. There is a big difference > between diversity and randomness. Randomness can > be described by a simple mathematical formula, and > therefore lacks complexity which is the foundation > of true diversity. My intuition tells me that > the perfect language should resemble wild nature; > it should be diverse, but not random.
What people are trying to say to you is that -there is no such thing as a perfect language-. Nothing more, nothing less. English is exceptionally difficult, but no language is impossible. Especially if you have no language at first.


Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>
And Rosta <a.rosta@...>