Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

> >I consider the "all languages are equally good" argument
> >very silly.
>
> Yeah, about as silly as the "all races are equal" argument!!
OK, there is a real political problem with that line
of thought; races really are equal. Nonetheless ...

> >By every set of criteria, languages do differ
> >in utility, beauty, simplicity, etc.
>
> Not the uitility, beauty, simplicity argument again!  :=(
OK, those are 'way too fuzzy obviously.
Better criteria are conceivable, though.

> Sorry - but with respect, these are _all_ subjective values & far removed
> from the purely linguistic arguments which do exist.
Here are some better, less subjective criteria:
http://www.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/griceil.htm

> >One might as well claim
> >that all XXXs are equal, where XXX ranges over all the nouns
> >in any dictionary.
>
> Utterly irrelevant.
How? It is a logical argument. Things that differ in detail
(human languages) can hardly be said to be the same in total.

I once mentioned a constructive proof: I can make
a conlang that is demonstrably worse than yours.
(Don't tempt me. Actually, I already have, many times.)

I once mentioned J. Guy's observations about Sakao
and Tolomako (or some such language pair) where one
was clearly better than the other in every respect.

The only logical argument I have noticed against,
is that every natlang is modified quickly by people
to fit whatever requirements they may encounter.

> >It takes quite a leap of faith to claim
> >that two things differing in every respect are somehow the same.
>
> Well, I don't.  I base my views on solid research & theory.
I don't know whether most experts agree, maybe they do.
But for now I'll just go on believing it is possible
to build much better languages than today's natlangs.