Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Nik Taylor wrote:

>Uh, I think that stone tools are primitive technology when compared with
>computers.  What's wrong with calling the kettle black?
Ever tried flaying a dead mastodon with a computer?  :-)

>> And why? Because we can discuss computers
>> (implication: industrial/info-tech societies are superior).
>
>That was not at all what I meant.  In fact, I think that in many ways
>our culture is inferior to techonologically primitive cultures.  But
>that's not the point I was making.  My point was that in discussing our
>culture and technology, English is superior to a language spoken by a
>technologically primitive culture.
But this does not, of course, have anything to do with the *structure*
of English, merely the vocabulary.  And vocabulary items can easily be
acquired to fit the changing needs of language users.  If the Mbabaram
people of Australia suddenly became regular computer users, they could
easily and quickly borrow or invent as many computer terms as they needed,
and from that point on, Mbabaram would be just as suitable a medium for
discussing computer technology as English is.

The point is:  Languages adapt their lexicons to the needs of their
speakers, and since the needs of speakers differ, the lexical inventories
of their
languages will differ as well.  But these differences are in principle
transitory and (I would argue) non-essential, since new words are being
acquired and old words are being discarded all the time.  To use suggestive
words like "superior" and "inferior" to describe the lexical resources of
a particular language at a particular time just seems a little extreme to
me.

Matt.

------------------------------------
Matt Pearson
mpearson@ucla.edu
UCLA Linguistics Department
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543
------------------------------------