Re: LANGUAGE LAWS

Raymond A. Brown wrote:

> It reminds me of a similar exchange a year or so back where "primitive
> Stone Age" language was being contrasted with the "developed modern
> languages".  IIRC the exchange then was on Auxlang.  The "Stone Age"
> language then was the typical comic-book type:   "Ug no like Ig. Ug kill
> Ig."
There was a popular view some years ago, Bodmer and Flesch
and Hogben and Ogden are some I have read, that primitive
language was extremely complex and grammaticalized
(lots of bound morphemes, affixes, irregularities);
and that modern advanced languages such as English
and Chinese were simple, isolating, and so on.

Now another line of thought says that pidgin/creole
languages tend to be isolating with simple grammar.
They are (almost by definition) easy to learn by adults.
But over-idiomatic English is far from easy ...

It may not be such a great idea to mix computer
langs into this discussion, but it is so tempting.
I'll just say it is interesting to consider these
ideas, without any need to decide anything.