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!
Christophe Grandsire
|Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.
"R=E9sister ou servir"
homepage : http://www.bde.espci.fr/homepage/Christophe.Grandsire/index.html