> The important thing to understand is that a language is generally good for the
> purposes of its speakers.
I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying that all we can be sure of
is that it is *minimally* good. My suspicion is that usually, it will
be possible to be *better* for their needs.
> Fitness of a language is not a universal measure but can only be
> evaluated when compared with the needs of a specific culture, [...]
Of course. Perhaps I should have made more explicit that I am only
saying that languages can be better *for a given context*. Obviously,
you need to have goals in order to be able to better fulfill them. ;-)
> Without criteria the entire question means nothing whatsoever.
Agreed.
- Sai