 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » All languages are equally fit... |
|
Page 1 of 83 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 81, 82, 83 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Trond Engen... |
 Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The subject looks like trolling but isn't.
In another group, when someone recently opined that some languages are
more elevated and thus more fit for abstraction, I answered that
linguists agree that all languages are equally fit to express any
thought, with the qualification that some may have a pre-existing
lexicon in a field but all are equally fit to create new terms for
anything from internal resources. I was challenged to provide support
for that, and now I realize that if I've ever seen it in print in a
linguistics book I can't remember where. Any suggestions?
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DKleinecke... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 27, 2:49 pm, Trond Engen <trond... at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote:
[quote:e2e4eb24e1]The subject looks like trolling but isn't.
In another group, when someone recently opined that some languages are
more elevated and thus more fit for abstraction, I answered that
linguists agree that all languages are equally fit to express any
thought, with the qualification that some may have a pre-existing
lexicon in a field but all are equally fit to create new terms for
anything from internal resources. I was challenged to provide support
for that, and now I realize that if I've ever seen it in print in a
linguistics book I can't remember where. Any suggestions?
--
Trond Engen
[/quote:e2e4eb24e1]
The world is full of language chauvinists. Some times they are quite
amusing. For example, numerous Arab-speaking writers, completely
ignorant of any other language, have rhapsodized over the superior
eloquence of Arabic. There is, of course, no metric for measuring
eloquence - nor is there one for abstraction - but that doesn't stop
them.
I think you scarcely need the help of linguists to shoot down the idea
that set this off. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 27, 5:49 pm, Trond Engen <trond... at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote:
[quote:8c57193f7a]The subject looks like trolling but isn't.
In another group, when someone recently opined that some languages are
more elevated and thus more fit for abstraction, I answered that
linguists agree that all languages are equally fit to express any
thought, with the qualification that some may have a pre-existing
lexicon in a field but all are equally fit to create new terms for
anything from internal resources. I was challenged to provide support
for that, and now I realize that if I've ever seen it in print in a
linguistics book I can't remember where. Any suggestions?
[/quote:8c57193f7a]
Surely it's in every intro book on linguistics for the gen pub?
Anything by David Crystal or Jean Aitchison?
And there's Sapir's famous "When it comes to linguistic form, Plato
walks with the Macedonian swineherd, Confucius with the head-hunting
savage of Assam." (Language, 1921: 219) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 9:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Question should be: Which language is fitter (Czech or Slovak)?
Or are they equally fit?
---------------------------------
Posted at: http://www.ForumBreak.com
--------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 9:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Trond Engen wrote:
[quote:ab86e0b0c2]The subject looks like trolling but isn't.
In another group, when someone recently opined that some languages are
more elevated and thus more fit for abstraction, I answered that
linguists agree that all languages are equally fit to express any
thought, with the qualification that some may have a pre-existing
lexicon in a field but all are equally fit to create new terms for
anything from internal resources.
[/quote:ab86e0b0c2]
This isn't really an answer to the question of "fitness" (whatever that
means), just a possibly related comment: Some languages are good at
creating new words by combining existing ones (German, Mandarin), some
don't allow this at all but have abundant affixes that can be used to
create new words (Eskimo languages), while others have few facilities
(possibly none?) for creating new words from "internal resources", but
readily borrow them from other languages.
I was challenged to provide support
[quote:ab86e0b0c2]for that, and now I realize that if I've ever seen it in print in a
linguistics book I can't remember where. Any suggestions?
[/quote:ab86e0b0c2]
I've recently been reading Sampson, Gill and Trudgill (eds) "Language
Complexity...", a series of articles providing evidence against the
axiom that all languages are similar in complexity (I know, not really
the point at issue). Sampson mentions Charles Hockett, "A Course in
Modern Linguistics" (1958) pp 180-81 as a particularly clear early
advocate of this idea: "[T]he total grammatical complexity of any
language, counting both morphology and syntax, is about the same as that
of any other."
It occurred to me that the existence or otherwise of a variety of
techniques for creating new words from internal resources might well be
a significant component of a complexity metric. However, a quick look
just now seems to show that none of the authors in this book have
investigated this. So, sorry, not much help.
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Panu... |
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 28, 6:13 am, MartinLa... at (no spam) ForumBreak.com wrote:
[quote:63c606d9f9]Question should be: Which language is fitter (Czech or Slovak)?
Or are they equally fit?
[/quote:63c606d9f9]
Why should either of them be fitter? Even if we - for the sake of
argument - accept the concept of linguistic "fitness" based on the
extent of literary and scientific cultivation, surely both Czech and
Slovak are modern and well-defined literary languages which readily
cope with new concepts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels skreiv:
[quote:b1dd8e4d5d]On Sep 27, 5:49 pm, Trond Engen <trond... at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote:
The subject looks like trolling but isn't.
In another group, when someone recently opined that some languages
are more elevated and thus more fit for abstraction, I answered that
linguists agree that all languages are equally fit to express any
thought, with the qualification that some may have a pre-existing
lexicon in a field but all are equally fit to create new terms for
anything from internal resources. I was challenged to provide
support for that, and now I realize that if I've ever seen it in
print in a linguistics book I can't remember where. Any suggestions?
Surely it's in every intro book on linguistics for the gen pub?
Anything by David Crystal or Jean Aitchison?
[/quote:b1dd8e4d5d]
My problem seems to be that I haven't read any of the intro books except
Deutscher's The Unfolding of Language, if that counts as one, but he
doesn't touch that. And I can't find it in Trask/McColl Millar's
Historical Linguistics.
[quote:b1dd8e4d5d]And there's Sapir's famous "When it comes to linguistic form, Plato
walks with the Macedonian swineherd, Confucius with the head-hunting
savage of Assam." (Language, 1921: 219)
[/quote:b1dd8e4d5d]
Thanks, I should have remembered that.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DKleinecke skreiv:
[quote:9357e7feca]On Sep 27, 2:49 pm, Trond Engen <trond... at (no spam) engen.priv.no> wrote:
The subject looks like trolling but isn't.
In another group, when someone recently opined that some languages
are more elevated and thus more fit for abstraction, I answered that
linguists agree that all languages are equally fit to express any
thought, with the qualification that some may have a pre-existing
lexicon in a field but all are equally fit to create new terms for
anything from internal resources. I was challenged to provide
support for that, and now I realize that if I've ever seen it in
print in a linguistics book I can't remember where. Any suggestions?
The world is full of language chauvinists. Some times they are quite
amusing. For example, numerous Arab-speaking writers, completely
ignorant of any other language, have rhapsodized over the superior
eloquence of Arabic. There is, of course, no metric for measuring
eloquence - nor is there one for abstraction - but that doesn't stop
them.
[/quote:9357e7feca]
In this case it's more like inverse chauvinism: The inability of the
poster's own language to deal with complex issues in the same way as its
more elevated neighbours.
[quote:9357e7feca]I think you scarcely need the help of linguists to shoot down the
idea that set this off.
[/quote:9357e7feca]
True, but I tried to make it simple for myself by a sweep in the general
direction of linguistics, and when some people just won't accept appeals
to anonymous authority I have a problem.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hei.
John Atkinson skreiv:
[quote:858fc7da10]Trond Engen wrote:
The subject looks like trolling but isn't.
In another group, when someone recently opined that some languages are
more elevated and thus more fit for abstraction, I answered that
linguists agree that all languages are equally fit to express any
thought, with the qualification that some may have a pre-existing
lexicon in a field but all are equally fit to create new terms for
anything from internal resources.
This isn't really an answer to the question of "fitness" (whatever
that means), just a possibly related comment: Some languages are
good at creating new words by combining existing ones (German,
Mandarin), some don't allow this at all but have abundant affixes
that can be used to create new words (Eskimo languages), while others
have few facilities (possibly none?) for creating new words from
"internal resources", but readily borrow them from other languages.
[/quote:858fc7da10]
I wonder about that. Is it so, or do all languages have systems for word
formation (for some value of word), but more or less attractive for
cultural reasons? What will happen to a borrowing language if it's cut
off from its sources? Say English becoming the one world language?
Wouldn't it just activate its more or less sleeping resources?
[quote:858fc7da10]I was challenged to provide support for that, and now I realize
that if I've ever seen it in print in a linguistics book I can't
remember where. Any suggestions?
I've recently been reading Sampson, Gill and Trudgill (eds) "Language
Complexity...", a series of articles providing evidence against the
axiom that all languages are similar in complexity (I know, not
really the point at issue). Sampson mentions Charles Hockett, "A
Course in Modern Linguistics" (1958) pp 180-81 as a particularly
clear early advocate of this idea: "[T]he total grammatical
complexity of any language, counting both morphology and syntax, is
about the same as that of any other."
It occurred to me that the existence or otherwise of a variety of
techniques for creating new words from internal resources might well
be a significant component of a complexity metric. However, a quick
look just now seems to show that none of the authors in this book
have investigated this. So, sorry, not much help.
[/quote:858fc7da10]
But interesting nevertheless.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Panu... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 28, 3:39 am, DKleinecke <dkleine... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:27dd1f82ac]
The world is full of language chauvinists. Some times they are quite
amusing. For example, numerous Arab-speaking writers, completely
ignorant of any other language, have rhapsodized over the superior
eloquence of Arabic.
[/quote:27dd1f82ac]
That might partly be due to the fact that literary Arabic needs to be
mastered by the Arabs themselves, being so different. Whatever you
produce in standard Arabic, sounds eloquent and profound. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 28, 7:43 am, Ruud Harmsen <r... at (no spam) rudhar.eu> wrote:
[quote:15dfedb720]See the Wikipedia pages in languages like Latin, Old-English and
Gothic.http://got.wikipedia.org/wiki
(Unfortunately, my Vista doesn't support the script!)
[/quote:15dfedb720]
No, it just means you don't happen to have a font with Unicode-encoded
Gothic in it. The three I have are AlphabetumUnicode (which Juan-Jose
Marcos will sell you cheap; he's a professor of linguistics in
northern Spain), Code2001 (free download), and MPH 28 Damase (which is
the only downloadable font that supports a few of the more obscure
ranges, but it has mistakes in both the ones I've tried to use --
Buginese and Hanunoo). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 28, 3:59 am, Panu <craoibhi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:b332bc6ee4]On Sep 28, 6:13 am, MartinLa... at (no spam) ForumBreak.com wrote:
Question should be: Which language is fitter (Czech or Slovak)?
Or are they equally fit?
Why should either of them be fitter? Even if we - for the sake of
argument - accept the concept of linguistic "fitness" based on the
extent of literary and scientific cultivation, surely both Czech and
Slovak are modern and well-defined literary languages which readily
cope with new concepts.
[/quote:b332bc6ee4]
Czech is more fitted for native speakers of Czech, and Slovak is more
fitted for native speakers of Slovak. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Panu... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 28, 4:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote:90e4a14623]On Sep 28, 3:59 am, Panu <craoibhi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 28, 6:13 am, MartinLa... at (no spam) ForumBreak.com wrote:
Question should be: Which language is fitter (Czech or Slovak)?
Or are they equally fit?
Why should either of them be fitter? Even if we - for the sake of
argument - accept the concept of linguistic "fitness" based on the
extent of literary and scientific cultivation, surely both Czech and
Slovak are modern and well-defined literary languages which readily
cope with new concepts.
Czech is more fitted for native speakers of Czech, and Slovak is more
fitted for native speakers of Slovak.
[/quote:90e4a14623]
There is the interesting problem that both (literary) Czech and
(literary) Slovak are artificial constructions and what we have is a
dialect continuum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christian Weisgerber... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ruud Harmsen <rh at (no spam) rudhar.eu> wrote:
[quote:47e74d832a]In the daily translation practice, I constantly find English and
German ways of saying things that aren't easy to do in Dutch.
[/quote:47e74d832a]
Probably, but this may also be an artifact of your limited command
of Dutch. Certainly my passive command of English (foreign/second
language) has long surpassed my active command of German (native).
[quote:47e74d832a]That's I know often start webpages in English and then translate them
to Dutch. That's much easier.
[/quote:47e74d832a]
Good for you. I have found that I can't even translate my own
English into German. What works for me is writing both versions
in parallel or shortly after each other, when the topic is still
fresh in my mind.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy at (no spam) mips.inka.de |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:14:54 +0100: António Marques <m.ap at (no spam) sapo.pt>: in
sci.lang:
[quote:2c9495ac41]Well, I don't rwally think it works like that. The first question is
'more fit for what?'. In the case you mention, it's 'abstraction'. I
happen to feel that's quite vague, but whatever. Whenever you are
challenged to support something, you need to know what kind of arguments
the other people are expecting. So, the second question would be 'what
is it there in language A that makes you think it is more fit?'. Your
argument then will have to consist of showing that those elements are
either present as well in any language B they choose, or that they would
develop naturally if needed.
[/quote:2c9495ac41]
In the daily translation practice, I constantly find English and
German ways of saying things that aren't easy to do in Dutch. So they
must be richer languages than Dutch. But when I write a webpage in
Dutch and then translate it to English, I find that Dutch too has many
unique ways of expressing things. So Dutch is richer AND poorer.
That's I know often start webpages in English and then translate them
to Dutch. That's much easier.
[quote:2c9495ac41]I have little doubt that some languages *are* more fit than others for
very specific purposes -
[/quote:2c9495ac41]
See the Wikipedia pages in languages like Latin, Old-English and
Gothic.
http://got.wikipedia.org/wiki
(Unfortunately, my Vista doesn't support the script!)
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:31 am
|
|