Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Douglas Koller wrote:

> Nik Taylor wrote:
>
> > Well, I don't think natlangs can be classed as superior or inferior,
> > without specifying a qualifier (e.g., "superior for discussing
> > technological concepts"), for example "primitive" languages - by whic=
h I
> > mean languages spoken by people with primitive technology, are inferi=
or
> > at discussing computers than English.
>
> Even qualified, these sound like you're heading down a slippery slope.
> Your first 'primitive' (as in "primitive" language) is politically
> correctly placed in quotes, but the 'primitive' in 'primitive
> technology' (and, gee, what cultures and/or races could be described as
> having "primitive technology"?) stands glaringly unmarked as does the
> following 'inferior'. Inferior to what? Inferior to English (and, gee,
> who speaks English?). And why? Because we can discuss computers
> (implication: industrial/info-tech societies are superior).
No, wait;  the vast majority of humans in the world today do *not* useobs=
idian blades or
atlatls or anything like that.  We are not comparing
Modern American culture to Papua New Guinean cultures, but the average
level of technological achievement around the world.  To the extent that
any culture falls below that mean, it is then, in some sense, "primitive"=
,
but it is of course implicitly understood that this is a relative measure=
ment.
That is, it makes just as much sense to say that Papua New Guinean hunter=
-
gatherers using bows and arrows to catch prey are more primitive than hig=
hly
precise automated weapons that we use in the west for safari hunts and so
forth, as it does to say that a language's morphological system is more
complex than another.  We have still, alas, not escaped the micro / macro
dichotomy.

[snip]

> > Probably impossible
> > for a human to learn, but still it would be superior.  That's what I =
was
> > getting at earlier, the concept of a language being superior is valid=
,
> > IMVHO.
>
> Well, sure, as a concept. But the concept of the perfect person, the
> superior person, the U"bermensch is also valid (and culturally
> delimited). Great philosophical treatises employ the concept. The
> pitfall lies in the fact that people will apply this label to themselve=
s
> which, by definition, implies that "others" are a little
> less-than-superior. We've seen the consequences of that mindset.
Again, <sigh> by what method are you coming to a definition of justwhat "=
superior" means?
"Superior" is in my opinion one of those words
where we all have some vague idea of what it means, but it means very
little when you _separate_ it from our own personal Weltanschauung.
So, on either account, whether you are talking about Nietzsche's
U"bermensch, or of any one particular conlang, it is still to be shown
by just what standards you are saying it's superior, let alone what kinds
of behavior it might lead to (e.g., the Holocaust).

Okay, let me put it another way:  I think we all agree that racism is a
horribly bad thing, because it is irrational, and has no basis in philoso=
phical
understanding of the universe, firm or otherwise.  Now, why is it then,
that we are willing to say that a conlang might be superior to another la=
nguage?
If that is true, by the line of reasoning that has been popular in this t=
hread,
it could still someday result in hatred of Hitlerian proportions.  Why is=
 it
that just because it looks inocuous enough now that we brush it aside and
refuse to address the issue?  The underlying logic behind saying _any_
language is superior and that of racism are at heart the same.

Am I not communicating myself here, am I writing badly or incoherently?
<sigh> I'm feeling a little frustrated now that I seem to keep saying the=
 same
thing but no one is answering my comments, because I want to know what
they have to say about it, what their side might be.


=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