Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Michael A. Rouse wrote:
> Actually, the subtext for such an exchange in our society -- and the
> information conveyed -- can be "I've noticed you, fellow human being, and
> perhaps you are available for communication," with the response, "I notice
> you in turn, and agree to communicate." The literal meaning is not all the
> information being transmitted.
I'd say it's more "I've noticed you, fellow member of my social
group..."  Think about "polite words", as I call them.  "Please", "thank
you", "pardon me", and so on.  Words that have no meaning in and of
themselves, but merely hold the group together.  Indeed, it might be
argued that the complexities of language have that function.  If
language was simple, if it was stripped down to the bare essentials of
communication, it would be relatively easy for an outsider to acquire
the language.  As it is, it takes a long time for an outsider to acquire
another language.  Indeed, some people never completely acquire a
foreign language, even if they live among the speakers for decades.  So,
in this way, I think, language is equivalent to ettiquete rules.

--
"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