Re: Language comparison

> Right - hence the confusion. So we are talking about 'languages'
> specifically designed by humans (formal languages), rather than about
> natural languages, are we?
No. "Human language" = "languages used by/between humans". Which
includes natural and constructed languages, and is unlikely to include
formal languages.

(I'd be willing to consider some of them - e.g., the language of
mathematical notation - to be a subset of this, albeit of limited
scope.)

> > While I think that some criteria for computer languages would be
> > useful as applied to human ones,
>
> Very limited, I think.
Which (limited subset) would you agree with?

> > I have consistently maintained that I
> > believe the choice of criteria themselves to be axiomatic - and thus
> > not something to debate.
>
> Are these the criteria for evaluating computer languages, or for
> evaluating language in general. If the latter, then it is something one
> could debate.
Both. I think there were previous "discussions" from the idea of
having "schools of thought" for conlangs that were equally
inconclusive, for the same reason. I don't consider the question of
whether aeshetics is more important than compaction, or of whether
crossmodality should be a criterion, to be debatable. Once you take a
set of criteria, though, the application/evaluation of them (as
applied to particular languages, or to some theoretical best-fit
prototype) certainly is.

> Maybe not - what I meant is that the approach you appear to be taking
> would, if translated into a conlang project, seem to suggest an engelang.
> I was suggesting, in fact, getting 'on topic'    :)
Sure; another time. Different topic, is all.

> Of course you can. How else can you go about designing an _engineered
> language_, for goodness sake?
That would be my supposition. But it seems that many people on this
thread disagree. How can you decide which choices are better without
first assuming that it is possible to make a better choice (and that a
better choice = a better outcome)? That foundation is essentially what
I meant to discuss here.

> > Unless you can say that one decision
> > is better than another - and hence, that the resulting language (all
> > things being equal) is better than what would have resulted with the
> > another decision - then there is no real basis for decisionmaking.
>
> I do not think anyone would disagree with this.
>
> But your initial hypothesis was: "some human languages are better than
> others".
Correct. You seem to be both agreeing and disagreeing with it, so I'm confused.

> Decisions made in engelang may have very little to do with anything in
> natural human languages.
Did I say "some natural human languages are better than others"?

>> In an artlang [...]
Well, sure. Different [axiomatic] criteria.

> Yes, yes - this works fine for formal languages - the where people like
> Mach, I & some others disagree strongly is the idea that natural languages
> can be successfully evaluated in such a way.
Even if you take a set of criteria by which to evaluate them? And if
you don't limit your search to only natural languages (I'm not sure
why you assumed this, since I don't think I said anything of the
sort)?

Sure, it would be axiomatic to impose that set of criteria on natural
languages, which don't come with an intentional set of criteria at all
(which conlangs, at least, generally do). But it could still be useful
inasmuch as you could say "language X does this better, because of Y",
and then figure out what the best methods to fulfill your criteria
would be.

> It would take quite a bit to elaborate, and threads do get a bit tedious
> if unduly prolonged. I did download a very interesting article by Daniel L.
>   Everett but unfortunately I do not have the web address. Do a Coogle
> search for "Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Piraha" - it
> is 52 pages long, and I think you will find it interesting.
http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/cultgram.pdf - Queued for
reading. Thanks for the reference.

> >> Quite so! The goals of computer languages are, as far as I can see, not
> >> the same as those of human languages.
> >
> > You're implying that the goals of computer languages are all the same
>
> WHAT!!! Where have I said that?
"Implying". Evidently I misread what you said, then; it seemed that
you were comparing the goals of computer languages as a single set of
criteria, vs. the [varied] criteria of human languages. My apologies.

> I did actually get my Master's degree in computer
> science and did best in programming and next best in compiler writing - so
> give me some credit, please!
I didn't know this, so it's hard for me to assume knowledge. :-P
Credit given, henceforth.

> They cannot. The primary purpose of computer languages is to give the
> human a means whereby s/he can instruct the machine, using (ultimately)
> binary code. That is not by any stretch of even the wildest (tho still
> sane) imagination the primary purpose of natural language.
It's a subset of them - i.e., that of giving a human detailed
instructions of what to do. That it is translated into binary isn't
particularly relevant for the high-level languages themselves -
abstraction layers, right?

> The differences in computer languages are well known and I will not bore
> the list by rehearsing them here. But the goals are known, generally
> agreed and can be evaluated.
>
> This is simply not the case with natural languages.
Why?

By extension, if this were continued you would get a list of possible
goals - "schools" by David Peterson (IIRC). Each potential goal for a
language - IOW, a conlang, since you can't very well evaluate a
natural language on how well it did *and give it a measure of success*
without its having undertaken to meet that goal - could then be
evaluated. So, essentially, you'd have what you describe - a set of
known goals, generally agreed upon (and coexistent), which could then
be applied and evaluated.

It seems that this *is* the case with conlangs - else, you'd have no
distinction between e.g., auxlangs, artlangs, etc. For natural
languages, it's not the case that they have the goal, but they can
still be evaluated *as if* they did, simply to find how well they
succeed (and if they do, then why).

> >> What are the goals of natural human language and in what ways odo,
> >> apparently, some fail to meet these goals.
> >
> > You just contradicted it again - by implying that there is a single
> > set of goals.
It seems this is just a misunderstanding. I took you to mean "goals"
as in "my goals for this language are X, Y, and Z"; rather than the
list {A, B, C}, {X, Y, Z}, etc.

> This thread is becoming a little tedious. It is quite clear that there has
> been misunderstanding. You have made it quite explicit above that you you
> were talking about the whole domain of human-use language, i.e. both
> formal languages (created by humans) and natural language (evolved through
> human usage).
Huh. I thought you meant "formal languages" as in those not
particularly meant for human-to-human use (e.g., calculus, programming
languages, etc.). Do you mean, then, *all* conlangs?

> - we are probably largely in agreement that the same applies to conlangs.
Excellent, then. Do you agree with what I said above, then, about it
being possible to include natural languages in this comparison *as if*
they had a particular set of goals? If so, then I think we are in fact
in agreement.

If not, then that would imply that there must be a major difference
between conlangs and natural languages - one that I don't see.
(Obviosly, conlangs have their own goals, but the "as if" should make
that irrelevant.)

> As I see it: as far as engelangs are concerned, (nearly) all criteria are
> objective and can therefore be evaluated; with artlangs there will be more
> subjectivity, and therefore evaluation will have certain subjective
> element; I certainly agree that auxlang can be evaluated but I also know
> from personal experience that doing so sadly but inevitably provokes
> flames.
Agreed.

> - as regards natural languages, you have written that you believe them to
> be mostly equal to each other. That is good enough for me.
FWIW, this is a supposition. I've never seen a real attempt at
comparing them with respect to a particular set of goals, though. ("A
real attempt" here is only meant to exclude those that were excuses
for cultural superiority, like that Latin must necessarily be more
"logical" than other languages.)

> > Perhaps so. I mean language to be any system designed to
> > explicitly/intentionally convey information.
>
> As I have said, the confusion has arisen because we have not been using
> the term 'language' in the same way. If you are in broad agreement with my
> summary above, I suggest we bring this thread to a close.
With the exception of what I pointed out above.

 - Sai

Reply