Re: Responding to a challenge
From: Zobby (zobby_at_zobby.com)
Date: 07/23/04
- Next message: Padraic Brown: "Re: Long vs. short vowels in English"
- Previous message: M. Ranjit Mathews: "Re: Lost in the mists of time..."
- In reply to: Raymond S. Wise: "Responding to a challenge"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Reply: Raymond S. Wise: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:15:42 -0400
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:23:36 -0500, Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> In a discussion in the newgroup fr.lettres.langue.anglaise , I expressed the
> opinions which follow (the numbered points below). A poster accused me of
> being pseudoscientific and writing for propaganda purposes--I can only guess
> that he had in mind my advocacy of Esperanto. I am an Esperantist, but I'm
This poster was me.
Yes, I accused you of being pseudo-scientific and writing for propaganda
purposes. After reading this last message, I accuse you also of being
dishonest.
*Of course* I had in mind your advocacy of Esperanto. The thread was called
"langue internationale" and the topic was Esperanto. What else could I have
had in mind?
> also a former student of linguistics who continues to have a keen interest
> in language, and the following represent what I take not only to be the
> consensus of linguists on the matters in question, but boringly so: That is,
> I'd be very surprised if any of the following points was part of a hot
> ongoing controversy in linguistics. The poster challenged me to present my
> ideas in this newsgroup, and I am taking him up on that challenge. I would
> like to add, however, that I don't believe any of the points is really
> original with me: They are either statements which I have read in works by
> linguists (or in the case of Anthony Burgess, an amateur linguist), or they
> follow logically from what those men and women have written.
>
> The poster claimed that ideas such as the following had been much discussed
> in this newsgroup. Let me say, in consequence, that you may treat this as
No. "The poster" did not claim that. He did not mention most of these
points at all. What he claimed (and *I* would know) is that the notion of
language complexity, and the simplicity of Esperanto in particular, had
been discussed here many times. He then claimed that there was, in his
opinion, no consensus on the question. He further expressed the opinion
that *if* there is a consensus, it is that language complexity is
impossible to measure, or at least to compare across different languages.
How would we compare complexity in morphology versus complexity in syntax
or phonology, for example?
He then mentioned the fact that all kids learn their native language in
about the same amount of time, which seems to indicate that all languages
are about equally complex.
[...]
> [3] Among natural languages, only young languages, like the sign languages
> of the deaf and the creole languages are relatively simple in form.
I never mentioned anything about this, but I am glad you think I have. I
don't believe creole languages are simple.
[...]
> [6] Each language serves the needs of the culture to which belong its
> speakers, and there are no simple cultures.
Of course. Find a quote of mine where I claim the contrary. You're being
dishonest.
[...]
> [8] Pidgins are not complete languages: They are used primarily for
> commerce.
Of course.
> [12] A language which is complex in that way could relatively easily be
> adapted into a standard language.
What the hell is a "standard language"? I certainly didn't make any claim
on what I know nothing about.
> [14] If only two persons existed who spoke a language, it might still be
> possible for that language to be complex in expressing ideas.
Obviously.
> [17] I then pulled all the above points together to discuss why Esperanto
> should be considered in relatively good shape, adding additional information
> about the language. This may, as I said above, be why I was criticized as
> propagandizing. I don't know if the poster who challenged me also thought
> that pseudoscientific ideas were involved in my conclusion concerning
> Esperanto. On this point, unlike the others, I make no claim that it is part
> of a consensus among linguists. I am aware that many linguists have no
> particular interest in the question of how Esperanto is faring, and so would
> have drawn no particular conclusions about the matter.
You claimed that the consensus among linguists was that there is a
complexity of form and a complexity of ideas. I had never heard of these
concepts.
You then tried to gain credibility by claiming to have read many linguistic
books and that your opinion represented the consensus among linguists
("j'ai beaucoup lu à ce sujet dans des oeuvres de linguistique, et mon
opinion représente le consensus parmi les linguistes").
I discarded these comments as propaganda.
> [18] In a footnote, I made the point that some languages which have "pidgin"
> in their name are not pidgins, but are instead creole languages.
I never disagreed. You continue to be dishonest.
> [19] In a subsequent post, I made the point that the grammar of Chinese is
> very simple from the standpoint of inflections, very complicated from the
> standpoint of word order, and the belief which certain Chinese have that
> their language "has no grammar" is erroneous.
I never disagreed. On the contrary, I remarked that you had understood the
idea of complexity in syntax compensating for the simplicity in morphology,
and yet insisted that Esperanto was simpler in all aspects.
> [20] Finally, I pointed out to the poster who challenged me as being
> "pseudoscientific" that he was utterly wrong in believing that linguist John
> McWhorter, the author of *The Power of Babel: The Natural History of
> Languages,* thinks that languages which are simple in form are "inferior."
> McWhorter believes that such languages are equal in expressing the
> complexity of ideas to languages which are complex in form. He uses the
> example of sign languages, creoles, and the lingua franca form of Fulani to
> make this point.
OK, this is the reason why I am writing this message. I would have dropped
the discussion, but this is the straw that broke the camel's back. All I
said is that McWhorter was a bad example of a linguist representing the
consensus. When you asked me to explain what I meant I mentioned
McWhorter's opinions on black culture and black music and how he viewed
certain cultures as "better" than others ("better" for the purpose of
integrating blacks in American society).
It seemed to me that many (most?) linguists lean towards relativism, and
McWhorter does not. That makes him a bad representative of the community.
It is only an opinion, I could be wrong. In any case, I never said anything
about McWhorter's opinions on the superiority or inferiority of languages.
After reading your message, "propaganda" seems too weak. "Lies" would be
more appropriate.
Z.
- Next message: Padraic Brown: "Re: Long vs. short vowels in English"
- Previous message: M. Ranjit Mathews: "Re: Lost in the mists of time..."
- In reply to: Raymond S. Wise: "Responding to a challenge"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Reply: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Reply: Raymond S. Wise: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
