Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Nik Taylor wrote:

> Definitely.  I could create a conlang that was definitely inferior to
> any natlang, so it seems logical that, if I had sufficient skill, I
> could create on that was superior.  Whether or not any human being has
> sufficient skill is another question (and I'll partly define superior:
> better able to describe a range of experiences, regardless of difficult=
y
> of learning)
But I think this opens Pandora's box again.  We have just gone throughano=
ther run of the
question of whether or not it is possible for natlangs
to be more logical or better than one another.  What makes them different
from conlangs?  I mean,  they are both products of the human mind, and
of human societal interactions, and both sets of languages are in some se=
nse
also consious creations of people, insofar as natlangs are the creations =
of
communities, while conlangs are the creations, for the most part, of
individuals.  What makes conlangs any different _qualitatively_? Are they
somehow not subject to the same laws  that have governed language since
the dawn of time?  I think this concept is _highly_ suspect.

> > Value judgments are subjective.  The scientific way of doing things i=
s to
> > use _objective_ data.
>
> It is contradictory to say "value judgements are bad", because "bad" is
> a value judgement itself.  "Value judgements are unscientific" is what
> you're getting at.  THAT is not self-contradictory.
Thank you all for clarifying. :)

=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