Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

From:Charles <catty@...>
Date:Wednesday, October 14, 1998, 1:56
> >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.