Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Douglas Koller wrote:
> but the 'primitive' in 'primitive
> technology' (and, gee, what cultures and/or races could be described as
> having "primitive technology"?) stands glaringly unmarked
Uh, I think that stone tools are primitive technology when compared with
computers.  What's wrong with calling the kettle black?

> 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.  Likewise, in describing their
culture, their language is superior to ours.  For example, primitive
peoples (from here on, primitive means low-tech) tend to have more
complicated kinship systems, fitting for cultures which place a much
greater value on the family than we do; as well as much more
sophisticated vocabularies for nature.

> Well, sure, as a concept.
And that was exactly what I was trying to point out.  As a concept,
superior languages are valid, and it is a worthy goal.  Just as a
perfect government is a valid concept, but impossible in practice.  Does
that mean we shouldn't try to improve government?  That we should accept
tyranny?

--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
ICQ: 18656696
AOL: NikTailor