Re: Language comparison

>>Face-to-face communication does this always. It involves rhythm and
melody and any movements we make.

Yes, but not in ways that are taken advantage of linguistically.<<

There is more to language than what is made explicit through words. Most
of communication is nonverbal: body gestures, facial expressions, vocal
quality (how a word is said), etc. These are so integrated into everyday
conversation that most people are not actively aware of them (this is
especially true of body language). This could account for why many people
underestimate or dismiss them as being unimportant. They may not have an
explicit linguistic purpose (grammar, vocab, etc), but they certainly
serve a sociolinguistic purpose, which is just as important.

>> > That's not the aim of writing narrowly considered, but of graphics
> in general (as my art teacher was fond of saying). We do have methods
> of conveying specific meaning outside of speech; they're called icons,
> the use of many of which are just as standardized as ordinary grammar.
Then would you consider writing that only incidentally conveys speech
- like Chinese - to be "real" writing? It's not phonetic; it cannot be
said to be "writing down" speech any better than speech could be said
to be "speaking out" the writing.

- Sai<<

Actually, many Chinese characters do have phonetic value (though I'm not
sure if they convey the phonetic values of _all_ the dialects that write
them). Maybe not in a sense that most Westerners are familiar with, but it
exists nonetheless. And anyway, Chinese still represents what is being
spoken, even if it's not through a mainly phonetic means, therefore it is
real writing.

And that's all I'm really going to comment on in this topic, as your
contention that some languages are qualitatively better than others is not
worth the effort.


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com

Reply