> What is this "overcompensative backlash"?
That which I've heard repeated here - that all languages, even
theoretical new ones, are completely equal.
> I assumed, as it seems others did, that by 'human language', you meant the
> natural languages that humans speak (and write) or have spoken in the past
Sorry; I certainly did not mean that. I said "human language" because
I meant, simply, languages for use by/between humans. As opposed to
e.g. computer languages.
> If however you mean all languages of human origin, whether naturally
> evolved or made as the result of deliberate creation (e.g. computer
> 'languages', conlangs) then I do not think anyone would disagree with your
> hypothesis.
No? Seems most people here have done so...
> Also I naively assumed you meant 'better linguistically'. It has become
> apparent during this thread that your criteria are not all linguistic.
Explain first what you mean by "better linguistically"? Not sure
whether or not you're right in that assumption.
> Of course if we take other factors into account we can say that one natural
> language is better for certain purposes than another. For example, English
> is much better than Basque if we wish to reach an international audience.
> But that is to do with political & economic factors - it has nothing to do
> with language per_se.
Of course. Not what I meant.
> IMO it is better to be over-specific rather than under-specific.
So it seems. I'll keep it in mind in future posts; my intent was not
to troll. I simply phrased it in the same way as I have done in other
contexts (in which I got the sort of discussion I was expecting). Goes
with learning a new context, I suppose. Forgive a fairly new poster
some first-time mistakes.
- Sai