Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

vardi wrote:

> I think part of the problem may be semantic-emotive, relating to the
> word "superior." I think most of us are very nervous about applying tha=
t
> to humans, or to human attributes or activities.  To me, even saying
> "he's a superior tennis player" sounds kind of icky.
Okay, I think the problem is that some people attribute to theword "super=
ior" ideas of
innateness, while others don't.  Nik and I
fall in the latter group, while you fall in the former, and there's nothi=
ng
wrong with that, except that I think the concept (IMO) of discussing the
innate qualities of things is a very sketchy issue and doesn't really hel=
p.
Too often, nothing can be said about what's innate in a thing. It's much
easier, and more useful, in the shortrun at least, to talk about the rela=
tive
values of things (unless of course, you can't find any criteria to object=
ively
identify them, as we have already discussed :) ).

=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