Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

At 10:45 am -0700 14/10/98, charles wrote:
......
>> of seriousness.  The point was NOT that races aren't equal,
>> they are;  the point was that it was not a silly thing to talk about
>> them being so, likewise with languages.
>
>Yes, it was an argument by analogy. I simply reject that analogy.
It's not so simple to reject.  I no more chose to have English as my 1st
language than I chose to be born a white 'AngloSaxon'.  I could no more
chose to have Mandarin Chinese as my 1st language than I could choose to be
born Chinese, or AfroCarribean or whatever.

I say that the notion that some natlangs are superior to others is just as
flawed, meaningless and IMHO dangerous as holding that certain races are
superior to others.  To me _both_ notions suck.

>A better one is "all cars are equally good".
Nah - cars are designed and consiously produced human artifacts in a way
that natlangs are not.  Yes, I can choose a 2nd language, I suppose, in the
way I can choose a car.  But I don't recall inheriting my first car ;)

Cars are IMO analogous to _conlangs_, not to natlangs.  Yep, when I come to
choose a conlang for writing a computer program I do have a choice & some
are better at certain things than another.

But, with respect, the question was first raised about natlangs.

>
>> Any attempt to use terms of value judgment areat base flawed, and are
>>outside the
>> scientific realm of doing things.
>
>You can't say that without self-contradiction, because it is
>a value judgement to do so: "Value judgements are bad!"
Eh???

Value judgments are subjective.  The scientific way of doing things is to
use _objective_ data.

I see no self-contradiction.

>> I would even deny the ability to build -- there is *no* basis on
>> which one can make such a language any more than another
>> on the macrolinguistic scale.  It's critical to understand that
>> dichotomy (the one between microlinguistic and macrolinguistic
>> issues), because it's the difference between life and death
>> of his position.
>
>Any tool can be made better or worse.
>Aren't we all engineers here?
Yes - conIALs, for example, are intended as tools.  They are engineered.
Computer programming languages are tools; they are engineered.  But these
are examples of _microlinguistics_.

But a natlanguage is much more than a mere tool, for goodness sake. It is,
among other things, a medium for artistic creation.  Did Vergil use the
Latin language as a tool to create the Aeneid.  HE DID NOT.

His tools were his schooling, his rhtorical training & his native with;
with them he fashioned out of his language a brilliant work of art (even
tho he died before he could fully complete it).  He use Latin as a sculptor
might use an piece of driftwood.

No, my language & all the rich multiplicity of natlangs are far more than
mere tools.

I agree, it is critical to understand the dichotomy between macro- &
micro-linguistics.

Ray.