Re: Defining "Language"

MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote:
> In a message dated 7/19/2007 2:23:39 AM Central Daylight Time,
> ray@CAROLANDRAY.PLUS.COM writes:
>
>
>>> If we define language as recursive, then Piraha is perhaps not a
>> language.
>>
>> David did say "if that whole Piraha business is accurate." The accuracy
>> of the current description of Piraha has been questioned before. Also,
>> of course, David did add that if the Piraha business is accurate "I
>> suppose language doesn't have to be recursive."
>>
>
> Yes, David did say that.  Everyone seems to assume that Piraha is a language
> and go from there.  If recursion is a requisite of language, then maybe what
> the Piraha people have is something not quite a language.  The interesting
> question is not whether the Piraha speech has recursion, but the more general
> question of speech without recursion.  Does it constitute a language?  If not,
> what is it?  How useful can it be?  Does it have any advantages over recursive
> language?
I'm not convinced that any language (not intended for communication with
computers) is actually recursive. Appending to the beginning or end of a
phrase doesn't imply recursion. Proposed examples of center-embedding in
languages like English end up being unrealistic beyond one or two
levels. If there's some language that regularly produces center embedded
phrases around 5 levels deep (in actual usage, not contrived examples),
that might be more convincing.