Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

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