Re: Comparison of philosophical languages
| From: | And Rosta <a.rosta@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, January 22, 2003, 3:07 |
|---|
Padraic:
> 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 You're about 2 centuries out of date for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 Your attitudes are way out of date, pal.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
This chap is a bit naive and seems not to realize that he
is operating under a set of implicit assumptions that
are axioms rather than truths or universal views.
Given the view of language as a tool, which is not illegitimate
(and not even impoverished, if we hold that it is a poetical
tool and a tool for embodying culture), then as with any tool
it is possible to articulate a set of criteria to gauge how
well a given design succeeds in performing the functions the
tool is to serve.
He is not so naive as to suppose his ideas are appropriate
to a discussion of natural languages, and he is right to
suppose that discussion of conlangs is the appropriate
forum. But he doesn't realize that he is tacitly working
under a set of engelangy assumptions and that he is
addressing a body of artlangers who are contentedly blind
to those assumptions.
--And.
Replies