Re: Language comparison

On 5 Jan 2005, at 11.10 pm, Sai Emrys wrote:

> Tristan -
>
>> Nevertheless, you've totally skipped the guts of your posts---we all
>> know that all languages can express the same concepts (I'm not sure
>> that Turing completion is a relevant concept to human languages,
>> excepting ones like Lojban).
>
> All languages that meet that minimum standard - being equivalent in
> power to what a natural creole would have. I don't think all conlangs
> meet this, not so much by fault of design as by completeness. I am
> more interested in comparing fully fleshed-out languages, natural or
> otherwise.
So don't use a technical term ('Turing complete') when you don't mean
what it means ;)

>> *Why* are some languages better than
>> others? *What* makes some languages better than others? *How* did this
>> come about? *How* much variability is there in natural languages'
>> goodness?
>
> *nodnod* These would be the followup questions, if you accept the
> premise that there is qualitative rather than merely arbitrary
> difference. I'm not honestly sure that this *is* widely accepted.
Err---no. These would be questions used to help me make a decision. At
the moment, all I see is an assertion that not all fully fleshed-out,
complete languages are equal. Why should I agree with that before I
have any reason to? My current position is that complete languages are
all equal. You introduce another opinion. *Why* should I change my
viewpoint? Before I change my opinion, it is your burden to convince
me, by answering the questions I've asked (and, in all probability,
others). (If you don't yet hold this view but are only looking at it
academically, why not throw a few reasons into the ring for us to poke
at and prod, so that maybe the discussion can have a bit of life.)

As for why the view that they don't differ qualitatively is widely
accepted, I'd start by investigating terms like 'better', 'superior' in
modern semi-scientific use.

> E.g., from a recent discussion with a friend of mine: all written
> language I know of is serialized, yet mind-native thought seems to be
> non-serial in nature.
Depends on the thinker. My consciousness (or the bits of my thought I
have access enough to to communicate) are serial enough and in the
English language first and foremost, though obviously irrelevancies pop
up and when writing emails I'll suddenly leave a sentence and go write
another one elsewhere. But I have no access to the process which brings
up these thoughts, so a written medium like email is adequate enough
for the communication of my ideas.

>> (BTW: I would be wary about describing this as a hypothesis. To my
>> knowledge, hypotheses should be testable and falsifiable, but you've
>> made a relative assertion. What you have here is an opinion/idea,
>> which
>> may be crafted into a series of hypotheses, which would then be tested
>> and bring us to some conclusion about the validity of your opinion.)
>
> It's provable, I think, inasmuch as it is "provable" that a computer
> language that supports function spawning is necessarily superior to
> one that does not.
As it stands it most certainly is not---we don't have a definition of
'better' yet and the best we can do is badger you until you give us one
(but as our patience only lasts so long, we might find ourselves
leaving this thread behind).

> But to do this, one has to compare features... and
> I've rarely if ever seen people try to do this with human languages.
I've yet to hear of a language that cannot adequately express the fact
that yesterday, I ate a bucket of stew. IOW, no language lacks the
features necessary to discuss events occurring in past time. Perhaps
people don't 'compare features' because all languages are equivalent?
Maybe this is why the consensus is that all languages are equal?

> Granted, that part is difficult, and there are bound to be tradeoffs,
> but I think it's okay as a theory.
My gosh! We've gone from a hypothesis to a theory without doing
anything! Well, not quite true---we have a little bit of fleshing out
of what you might consider 'better', but it seems all hand-wavy and
lacks any evidence in support of it, so I remain unconvinced. A
pity---the idea seemed interesting and pre-contempory, both of which
are currently interesting to me.

>> And even leaving that aside, if modern linguists flatly reject
>> the concept (because it's false), I don't see how it's critical to a
>> conlanger. If there is some alternate universe in which all bridges
>> are
>> equal, why should bridge-builders and engineers bother themselves with
>> questions like: 'But what happens if a bridge made out of mobile
>> phones
>> is better than one made out of steel?!'. If, OTOH, modern linguists
>> flatly reject the concept because political correctness prohibits them
>> from discussing the issue, but, as a matter of fact, some languages
>> are
>> not on-par with Classical Latin, then it is an issue for *all*
>> linguists amateur or professional, and not just those who are
>> interested in constructing them.
>
> *nod* Agreed. IMHO, it ought to be an issue for *all* linguists, but
> admitting that there are *any* qualitative, value-judgable differences
> between languages would be arguing against what the trend (as I've
> seen it) has been
And it is my understanding that this is precisely how you get yourself
a PhD, if you succeed (not that I have one, mere undergrad that I am).
After that was granted, it'd be no more than ten minutes before the
Wikipedia's article on Language had a section discussing the
controversy between language neutrality and language betterness for all
and sundry to read.

>  - to defend quote-unquote "simple" or "primitive"
> languages as being fully valid and equal in status to any other,
> because they too have fully functional grammars, complex syntax, etc.
>
> However, this feels like an argument of *sufficiency* rather than
> *equivalency*. I would certainly agree that all natural languages are
> *sufficient* for their users' purposes and are (with enough use)
> grammatically etc. complete. But this does not answer my question of
> whether some might be better than others.
So tell us: What questions *do* answer yours? I'm satisfied by what
leaves you wanting, and I don't know where to turn next.

> Specifically for conlangers, the importance of this is that it would
> imply a list of features - as you have in computer language design -
> with various well-known tradeoffs or wins for each feature. E.g.,
> something akin to "implement pointer arithmetic, and you introduce a
> strong low-level control at the cost of bugs". I feel like the way it
> is done now is more or less arbitrary; you know that you can do things
> in a variety of ways, but the choice between them is arbitrary or
> aesthetic.
To me, this seems to mean you have 'better by measure X'. Today we
already have that; if we are trying to communicate with me, English is
*by far* your best choice, so for communicating with Tristan, English
is the best language (when this isn't possible, Middle English or
simple High German *might* get you some success, whereas I have
difficulty distinguishing between gibberish and Uighur, so I recommend
staying away from that. Hence, High German by some measure is better
than Uighur, and I think no-one will dispute that).

--
Tristan.