Re: Language comparison

A previous resume: Among the features that you've proposed, there is none
that could distinguish the qualities of any existing human language. Of
course, the day of tomorrow might emerge one where they all apply, and of
course, they apply to other information systems (like programming so-called
"languages").


On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:44:56 -0800, Sai Emrys <saizai@...> wrote:

>> It's not one-to-one, because there's more than one
>> language whose words you can use, but it's nevertheless the case that
>> Chinese writing is written language.   Which is very different from
>> other forms of pictorial representation of meaning.
>
>How?
>
>Seems to me that the only "difference" is that it's serial, and that
>it has a known way to translate into speech. The latter is irrelevant
No it isn't. It's what writing systems are all about.


>- one can always devise one, relatively easily, for a serial code. So
>is a written form that does not yet have a manner of speech not a
>"real" form of language?
Of course not. Why should it? It's not even a writing system (I'm not
repeating again what a writing system is).



On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:49:43 -0800, Sai Emrys <saizai@...> wrote:

>> >* little effort to use
>>
>> If there were human languages that would require more effort to talk,
>> then they would have died out in the many thousands of years of language
>> evolution.
>
>Hardly. The only thing evolution produces is sufficiency, not
>efficiency. I think it's a mistake to belive that (any) evolution
>results in "the best", just probably the best amongst the local
>competitors.
(Aren't we all local competitors?) From birth, humans learn language with no
effort (with normal effort, if you will). A baby learns the language of the
people it grows with, and it doesn't depend on the language how long it takes.


>And in any case, it might well be possible to intentionally design an
>even easier language. I don't know, but I'm at least willing to give
>the idea an opportunity.
So am I, if somebody gives me a convincing example. You haven't, and I doubt
you ever will or anybody. But this believe of mine doesn't affect my
willingness.


>> "Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und seinen Einfluss
auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts" ('about the
heterogeneity of language construction and its influence [of language
construction] on the intellectual development of mankind'), which is said to
be one of the most interesting books on languages (and one of the first).
Maybe I should try again to read it! :)
>
>Sounds interesting; any chance of an English translation? (Ich spreche
>keine Deutsch...) ([sic], probably)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521667720/


>> However, there's no such directionality in the evolution of language.
>
>Does that mean you believe the current (~1 bit per character IIRC)
>amount of density is the maximum feasible?
Language has no characters, only written language has. And it has definitly
no bits.


>> >* as clear/ambiguous as desired
>> >* possible to carry multiple meanings (if desired)
>>
>> Unlike in computer "languages" (which is a misleading metaphora in this
>> discussion) or Logics, meaning in natural languages is always flexible.
>
>Yes, but it's not always possible to have it flexible to the exact
>degree you want. I cannot talk about "demons", for example, without
>invoking a bunch of extra meanings that I don't necessarily intend. Or
>for another, in English, it's difficult to talk about groups of people
>of a specified gender-ratio; I could add that through (cumbersome)
>explanation, but the grammar doesn't support it natively. Some do.
Maybe you're just looking for a language with a large amount of grammatical
categories. Have a look at sanskrit.


>> All writing systems can be read from any direction/inversion. We're just
>> more used to read in a specific way. If you would have learnt reading in
>> a class with a single book so that all had to sit around it in a circle,
>> then you'd be able to read equally fluent from any direction.
>
>But English, at least, is certainly "meant" to be read in a particular
>direction/inversion.
Certainly. Because our visual recognition of characters is helped a lot when
we always see them in the same orientation. We don't recognize character for
character. If you hold a book upside down, then you do.

Okay, I admit that I don't deny the mere possibility of a characters whose
recognition doesn't depend on directionality (neither do I deny the
possibility that the earth stops from turning).


>> >* writing system that fully uses its medium (e.g., non-serial use of 2d
>> >space)
>>
>> The aim of writing is not to fully use the paper, but to represent speech,
>> which is essencially bidimensional.
>
>I strongly disagree on that. The aim of writing is to convey meaning.
The difference between writing and other methods of conveying meaning is
that writing always corresponds to speech.


>If you use it merely as a code for speech, then fine, but then you
>loose most of what you might have been able to do through the
>different medium. It's like only using TVs for slideshows; the medium
>is capable of more.
This is not because of writing, but because of the frames where writing is
displayed. It's not a characteristic of the alphabet.


>> >* multimodal - maximally using whatever means of information transfer
>> >available
>>
>> 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.
Well of course it does. If we were talking to each other face to face, you
would notice that I'd be getting tired and annoyed of replying at length to
your arguments.

I'd suggest you search any linguistics reader and learn about the many
meaningful dimensions that accompany speech.


>> All speech organs have a more original function that is different from
>> producing speech. When that original function is used, you can't produce
>> speech. All natural languages are either sound languages (respiratory
>> system, mouth) or sign languages (arms, hands, face, body). There are no
>> languages that use either.
>
>Fallacy of argument, there. I never asked whether there *are* any; I
>asked whether there *could be* any.
My contribution was in response to you idea that a language would be better
if it could be used in any given environment/situation. My contribution was
meant to deny this.


>> >* advanced version: carry multiple meanings, some of which are only
>> >understandable if you have a different mode of access (e.g., a more
>> >advanced version of shaking your head when you're talking, such that
>> >hearing-only listeners don't get the "this is false" message)
>>
>> Why should any language keep its speakers from showing what they think
>> about the facticity of what they're uttering? I can't imagine a language
>> where it wouldn't be possible to show through intonation (or some other
>> device) that you are ironical about what you're saying or very convinced
>> or very sceptic etc.
>
>Yes, but that wouldn't be differential. I can conceive of situations
>where this would be useful (e.g. where the message to one part of the
>audience needs to be filtered). Nevertheless, the point here is only
>that current languages are not capable of doing this (except in an ad
>hoc manner I described above, which you'll get in any movie with an
>"we've been bugged" scene)... and that it is probably possible to do
>it better.
Tell me how (I'm willing to believe in the possibility of anything).


>> I don't understand these two (they sound pretty much like computerese to
>> me).
>
>> >* corollary: not overspecified (e.g., ubiquitous gender when wasteful
>> >of space or otherwise undesired)
>
>E.g., Romance languages have ubiquitous gender. You can't *avoid*
>having to spend (some) semantic space on it, on an ongoing basis, even
>when it's already quite obvious and adds nothing to the conversation.
>I say you should only specify as much information as needed; that
>semantic "space" could be used for something more valuable.
All known languages are full of redundance (see the above mentioned
linguistic textbook) (well, I haven't mentioned any, but I don't any in
Engish and most are very useful). This is because, as I've explained,
language doesn't only develop into maximal denseness, but also into minimal
confusion.


>> >* runtime encryption (if wanted)
>
>Ability to say something so that only those who also know your "key"
>would be able to understand the content; people who don't, even if
>they're fluent and know your method of encryption, would not.
>
>It would take some work to conceive of a good way to do this that can
>be done "runtime" - i.e., while you're talking - by humans, and isn't
>as simplistic as a variant of Pig Latin (which doesn't meet the second
>criterion above). I think it's possible.
Tell me how (I'm willing to believe in the possibility of anything). How
about - another language! :)

gry@s:
j. 'mach' wust

Replies