Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

Nik Taylor wrote:

> But, let me put this out to the list: If God has a language, would not
> that language be superior to all human languages?  Probably impossible
> for a human to learn, but still it would be superior.  That's what I wa=
s
> getting at earlier, the concept of a language being superior is valid,
> IMVHO.
I respect your honest beliefs, but again, I must question the assumptions=
you are making
when you make this statement.  First off, language, whatever
it is, is an imperfect means of communication, because it by necessity de=
pends
on the ability of two people to have very nearly or exactly the same idea=
 about
what a word means.  Obviously, this is not the case, as anyone who's ever
asked different people what the word "love" or "democracy" or things like
that mean.

If God were then to try to communicate to people, then would he not want
to completely bypass this problem in the first place?  I mean, God is Spi=
rit,
and so he would want to talk directly to that person's conscious mind, mu=
ch
as is described in the Bible.  It is only the limitations of the physical=
 body
that necessitates something as crude as language for purposes of
communication.

But, I still must disagree:  no language has any inherent ability to comm=
unicate
better than another, for lots of reasons that have come out in this discu=
ssion:

(a) the mind - body dichotomy a la Descartes prevents instantaneous
communication with the persons involved (that is, with the actual conscio=
us,
which is to be kept separate from the _man_, or body-like aspect, in
question.  This would be an idealized, Platonic conceptualization of what
language _should_ be, as it would accomplish its goals perfectly well by
communicating concepts directly, with no middle-man to interfere.

(b) any system which has rules by definition is limited, because the purp=
ose
of rules is to limit the possibilities of conduct of the system, so that =
they might
be in some sense predictable.  Language is just such a system, and by def=
inition
will have limiting factors which prevent it from being used in any indefi=
nitely
great way.  Correspondingly, the lack of a proper objective definition by=
 which
to point out just what that greater, higher, or more efficient way would =
be
makes it impossible to show how there might be a regular, rule-based rela=
tionship
between the language's limits and its supposed "betterness".

> However, natlangs are all roughly equal, and I doubt if any
> human being has the capacity to exceed natlangs, so the whole discussio=
n
> is kinda moot.
Whatever the case, I agree with you here. :)


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"Schlie=DFt den heil'gen Zirkel dichter,
  Schw=F6rt bei diesem goldnen Wein,
Dem Gel=FCbde treu zu sein,
  Schw=F6rt es bei dem Sternenrichter!"
   - _Ode an die Freude_, J. F. von Schiller
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=0D