Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Robert J. Petry wrote:

> Since, as you mention above, artificial languages are generally the top=
ic of
> conlang and auxlang. So, if the discussion is kept to that category, th=
en is
> there not such a thing as one being "better" than the other(s)?
Certainly, if you are talking about a language's capacity in a certain ar=
ea,e.g., as we
have said, Japanese's system of honorifics, then, yes of course
you can say that one is "better" at conveying a deeper amount of informat=
ion
in that aspect.  But to then carry that microlinguistic aspect over to me=
aning
"better" on a macroscale is erroneous, because there has yet to be shown
a way to _quantify_ the sum total of these differences.  Is Latin better =
than
English because it has cases? Assuming yes, then wouldn't (by the logical=
 law of
transitivity) Finnish be "better" than English?  But clearly, Finnish is =
not nearly
as useful as English is, because English can be used with far many more m=
illions
(or billions) of people in the world, and that is a legitimate way of def=
ining
"better".  So, you see, whatever you say, you will have to limit your gen=
eralization
to a certain aspect of the language, which will not help you in the least=
 when
you are trying to promote a certain language, because in that case you ar=
e trying
to sell the language as a whole, not as parts of it.

> The question
> seems to be, "which of these AIL's are capable of being used for commun=
ication
> across the most natlang barriers with the greatest of ease in learning =
time,
> the simplest grammar, etc.. Certainly if a certain language could commu=
nicate
> across, let's say, a half dozen or more language barriers with virtuall=
y no
> previous study by the participants, versus a language that required lot=
s of
> study and could only cross one language barrier at a time and only to s=
omeone
> who had studied that AIL in particular, then do we not have here a crit=
eria
> for "better"?
Again, it's not just the absolute linguistic facts of the matter that are=
 involved.The
cultures of the people involved will have certain conceptions of words wh=
ich
even closely related languages might not (cf. German speaking Americans w=
ith
their relatives in Germany, or better yet, Chinese Americans).

> i.e. Better at fulfilling the job hoped for, i.e.: to bring ease
> of communication to the most people at one time across the most languag=
e
> barriers possible at one time. One, let's say, that could right now rea=
ch
> upwards of a billion people with written and spoken messages, would be =
better
> in that category over one that could reach maybe 10-50,000 people who a=
re
> students only of that AIL. Such a language exists today, but for some r=
eason
> it is ignored.
Is English ignored? On the contrary, it is very well known what it can an=
d does do.

Cf.  <http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,27013,00.html?st.ne.fd.mdh>

> Sometimes something can do too good a job since it seems to be
> human nature to resist anything categorized as "good, better, best". Bu=
t, if
> it does exist, is it not "better" if it fulfills that job better than a=
ny in
> use or on the drawings boards now? But, if we say, well it does not sou=
nd as
> good as French or Italian, than that becomes a personal preference whic=
h
> cannot be classified as "better" for everyone.
How do you quantify an opinion?  You can't, and that's (another reason) w=
hyyou can't say
what is better or not.

> Is not the real question "better at doing what?" versus better because =
of
> "sonal quality, size of vocabulary, number of grammar rules, number of
> speakers, etc.?
Yes, you got it.  But your whole point this whole time (or at least osten=
sibly)
was that such "betterness" could be implemented into a constructed langua=
ge.
To give a language any kind of structure is by necessity limiting it, so =
there is
every reason to believe that no matter what you say, there will be pros a=
nd cons
to what you do.

Another issue I think we need to clarify is the important difference betw=
een
_coherence_ (regularity of the verbal system, for example) and _complexit=
y_
(having or not having a particular paradigm, e.g., accusativity marking).=
  This is
important, because if you are trying to say that some languages are more =
complex,
you might be confusing that with their level of coherence.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"Schlie=DFt den heil'gen Zirkel dichter,
  Schw=F6rt bei diesem goldnen Wein,
Dem Gel=FCbde treu zu sein,
  Schw=F6rt es bei dem Sternenrichter!"
   - _Ode an die Freude_, J. F. von Schiller
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=0D