Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

From:Joshua Shinavier <jshinavi@...>
Date:Thursday, October 15, 1998, 13:23
> >There *are*, however, properties of languages which *can* be compared qu=
ite
> >effectively, logic and complexity being two of the easiest to define a > >means of > >measurement for -- >=20 > I'm not so sure about that. The last time this issue was discussed on > Conlang, we tried to figure out some objective criteria for measuring > relative logic and complexity, without much success (or at least, *I* was > unconvinced). The only real quantifiable feature that people could come > up with was relative number of morphologically irregular forms. The idea=
,
> I guess, is that morphologically irregular forms are harder to learn (bot=
h
> by native speakers and by second language learners), making a language th=
at
> has more irregular forms more 'complex' and less 'logical' than a languag=
e
> with less irregular forms.
What I had in mind (i.e. my particular conception of "the complexity of a= =20 language") is more along the lines of the amount of syntactical information= =20 neccessary to speak the language -- the complexity of the "mental programm= ing"=20 which correct use of the language demands. My choice of that particular=20 "definition" is probably influenced by my A.I. work (I've had to actually= =20 *program a human language* into a machine; details of complexity become ver= y=20 obvious here!), but in the abscence of any other more concrete definition (= what=20 is "irregularity"?), at least the more "logical" languages like my Danoven = or=20 the various loglangs become measurable, as they have fixed, visible rules t= o be=20 followed. For natural languages things become much less clear, as the spea= kers=20 of the language are themselves not fully aware of the rules or influences = that=20 go into their choice of a certain pattern in speech (e.g. "I'm running out = of=20 time!" What is *this* supposed to mean? Well, if you want you can stop an= d try=20 to define the verb "to run out of time" and equate the speaker's sentence w= ith=20 this artificial rational exression -- but really, nothing resembling that= =20 definition ever went through the speaker's mind; the utterance simply came = about=20 through association of a feeling of rushed apprehension with a certain Engl= ish=20 phrase; there is little here to analyze from a grammatical point of view, a= nd=20 any considerations of "complexity" must neccessarily run off into the realm= of=20 psychology and intelligence theory). With a purely "logical" language, in= =20 contrast, the speaker's expressions can always be followed back to a defini= te=20 informational construct. In a language such as mine, emotion mimics logic = in that there is a system for identifying emotions in order to reduce them to= =20 networks of the usual, stylized variety -- so that they can be expressed in= the=20 same manner as rational assertions -- and therefore even that aspect of the= =20 language remains "analyzeable" (this might seem very artificial -- and it i= s --=20 but it works quite well and, when speaking to another person in real life (= you=20 know, where you can actually see the person you're speaking to; everyone he= re=20 still remembers that sort of thing, right? ;-) no words go unaccompanied by= =20 other, more intuitive forms of communication). The "logical" nature of a language, I would say, can be described (and=20 quantified, if desired) fairly well by the degrees to which it relies on cl= early=20 describable, discrete constructs, while "complexity" is a term best reserve= d for=20 relatively logical languages, or for the logical components of more "intuit= ive"=20 ones. I don't know if anyone else has any suggestions, but that is in any = case=20 my idea of logic and complexity in language. To figure "irregularity" in, = I'd=20 take the *simplest possible description* of any given set of grammatical ru= les=20 (and exceptions, which are also rules), and call "irregular" (if you want t= o get=20 some sort of use out of the word) those branches with especially limited fi= elds=20 of applicability. Irregularities do increase the complexity of a grammar, = but=20 they are *definitely not* the sole determining factor. Try programming a= =20 computer to speak English some time; you'll gain, if not a computer which s= peaks=20 English, an aggravatingly clear view of linguistic "logic" and "complexity"= in a=20 practical sense ;-) _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/ Joshua Shinavier =20 _/ _/ _/ Loorenstrasse 74, Zimmer B321=20 _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ CH-8053 Z=FCrich =20 _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Switzerland =20 _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ =20 http://members.tripod.com/~Paradox5/Danoven/danoven.html