Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: LANGUAGE LAWS

From:charles <catty@...>
Date:Sunday, October 18, 1998, 17:14
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.