Re: Re : Malat

Joshua Shinavier wrote:
> Natlangs seem illogical to me, but this doesn't have anything to do with their
> methods for deriving words -- rather with their syntax, and with the definitions
> of words.
In defense of natlangs here, I don't think that any natlang is
"illogical".  The illogic only comes when you look at it from a foreign
frame of reference.  Logical and illogical don't necessarily mean
"conforming to reality" or "not conforming to reality", I'd say that the
Ptolomeic system was very logical, for instance, given what was known in
his time.  It was self-consistent, and it fit what was known of the
universe at the time.  Self-consistency, and conforming to a tradition
worldview are my criteria for a "logical language", and in that case,
nearly every natlang is logical, the only illogical ones are the ones in
the midst of major social upheaval, which have partly assimilated a new
worldview, and partially retained the old.

--
"We're not obsessed, we're focused!" - X-Philes' motto, by Gizzie
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
ICQ: 18656696
AOL: NikTailor