Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Re : Malat

From:Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date:Thursday, December 10, 1998, 7:25
At 07:37 09/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>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. >
But in that case nearly _every_ language is illogical (at least every language of an "industrialized society") as the whole world is in a major upheaval!
>-- >"We're not obsessed, we're focused!" - X-Philes' motto, by Gizzie >http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files >ICQ: 18656696 >AOL: NikTailor > >
Christophe Grandsire |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G. "R=E9sister ou servir" homepage : http://www.bde.espci.fr/homepage/Christophe.Grandsire/index.html