>
>Gerald Koenig wrote:
>
>> NGL a better language than English. So far I have convinced myself, and
>> probably no one else, that I have devised a more compact and accurate
>> tense system than English. It's good to hear that at least one other
>> person does believe there is a difference between languages in overall
>> effectiveness. Not all swiss army knives are born equal.
>
>But is a Swiss army knife more "effective overall" than a paintbrush? A
>boat? A wristwatch?
>
>I can't cross a lake with a wristwatch, but that doesn't mean a boat is
>"better overall" than a wristwatch.
My view is that language is the most general purpose tool man has ever
conceived. And like that other general purpose tool we are communicating
on,the computer, there are differences.
>
>Your vector system may well be more compact and accurate than English
>tenses, but aren't you already presupposing that obligatory tense
>marking *an sich* is "better"? On what basis are we to accept that as a
>given?
Vector tense time claims can be made as vague or nonexistent as you
like, there is nothing obligatory about it. You choose your level of
specifity. Is choice a bad thing? Is obligatory vagueness and
imprecision a good thing? Or should it be used as an art form? Is it
best for production contracts?
Why doesn't your system take on the challenge of being more
>compact and accurate in charting the hierarchy of interpersonal
>relationships than Japanese? Does the fact that it doesn't make it less
>"effective" than Japanese? Does it hinder the "overall effectiveness" of
>your system? Why? Why not?
Jack Durst has devised and entire kinship system module for NGL. I'm
sure he'd welcome your input to raise it up to and beyond the Japanese
standard if you'd like. This is a serious proposal.
>
>And what is exactly meant by "overall effectiveness" or "effective
>communication"?
I understand that you are skeptical that any such things exist or are
definable in the real world. Probably I can't change your opinion on
that.
>
>This seems to me a bit like the quandry of cinema verite where the
>attempt is to film life "in the raw". But how do you do that? By the
>very act of picking up the camera and aiming it at something, you've
>already blown the exercise because what you've framed is not "life in
>the raw" but one view at the exclusion of another.
>
>So, too, when you pick up a language and aim it at something. Once
>you've defined what "effective communication" (or "ease" or
>"efficiency") is, you have, in effect, framed the shot which will be no
>more than one view at the exclusion of another.
I don't believe in a God's -eye view. But there is such a thing as
shifts in point of view summing to a better overall conception. A well
sewn patchwork quilt is a thing of wonder. A global patchwork quilt of a
language would be less exclusive than a "framed shot".
>
>Well some lint seems to have gathered in my navel while I was
>contemplating it, so I'll leave off here...
>
Thanks for responding. I hate it when a post vanishes into cyberspace
without a trace.
Jerry
>Kou
>