Re: OT: Auxlangs (was Re: "Esperanto V.2")

Chris Bates wrote:

>> But I think you *can* have the full expressive power of a natlang
>> together
>> with a simple, easy-to-use grammar.
>>
>>
> I'm not disagreeing with that, but there are more and less elegant
> solutions to the various problems a language has to deal with. It's
> similar in a way to the differences between Turing complete
> programming languages: yes, in a sense ig your program can be run on a
> Turing machine then you can write it in any Turing complete
> programming language, but that doesn't mean that all languages are
> equal. Some present much better, more elegant and more concise
> solutions to common problems than others do.

I wouldn't equate 'concise' with 'better', with programming languages or
natural ones.  Conciseness in a programming language usually occurs at
the expense of readability, and conciseness with actual languages
increases the possibility of mishearing.

Replies