Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

From:Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
Date:Thursday, October 15, 1998, 1:05
Matt Pearson wrote:
> Another thing to keep in mind is that, even with objective criteria to > measure them, 'complexity' and 'logic' depend very much on your point of > view, and on how well you understand the phenomenon you're examining.
And indeed, your language. In "Words in Context", the author points out that for English-speaking people learning Japanese, Japanese "just doesn't make any sense", and the same is true of Japanese learning English. [Snipped Finnish example]
> Whether this is system is simple or complex depends on what your initial > assumptions are.
[Snippage]
> The point I'm trying to make is that whether a particular linguistic > phenomenon seems random (and hence 'complex' and 'illogical') may depend > on your analysis. One set of assumptions may lead you to conclude that > there's no pattern to the data, while another set of assumptions may reveal > that the data is actually highly structured and sensible - on its own terms.
Very interesting example. I've seen similar analyses (sp?) of various features of English. I don't remember the examples, tho. Slightly OT: Data (an android) in Star Trek was unable to use contractions. This has been explaned as the rules being too complex for him. But wouldn't it be more logical to suppose that he was *programmed* not to use contractions, for the same reason that he was given golden eyes? That is, to make him more distinct from humans? -- "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