Re: Responding to a challenge
From: Raymond S. Wise (mplsrayNOSPAM_at_gbronline.com)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: Franz Gnaedinger: "Re: Did the Trojan war really happen the way Homer said it did?"
- Previous message: Franz Gnaedinger: "Re: Linear A tablet Hagia Triada 95"
- Maybe in reply to: Raymond S. Wise: "Responding to a challenge"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 02:08:03 -0500
[The original of this message was sent with an incorrect date. In
consequence, it does not appear in Google Groups archive or www.foorum.fr
and may have been rejected by some news servers.]
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4107EED1.4F55@worldnet.att.net...
> Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:4104E7D6.754C@worldnet.att.net...
> > > Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:41024868.1DEA@worldnet.att.net...
> > > > > Joseph W. Murphy wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > [1] Linguists recognize two sorts of complexity in
language: First, a
> > > > > > >> > > complexity of form, and secondly a complexity of ideas.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I haven't encountered such a duality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, here's a McWhorter quote on the topic of language
complexity.
> > > > > > It's from The Power of Babel at p. 200 of the paperback:
> > > > >
> > > > > (But not even McWhorter is a source for RSW's duality.)
> > > >
> > > > Actually, he is. It is clear in the context that McWhorter is
referring
> > > > there to complexity of form. Other parts of the book deal with the
> > > > complexity of expressing ideas: McWhorter shows that he believes all
> > > > dialects and languages (excluding pidgins) to be equal on that
score.
> > His
> > > > comments about nonstandard dialects, creoles, and sign languages,
for
> > > > example, as concern the ability of their speakers to communicate
> > complicated
> > > > ideas, are essentially no different from what I have seen other
> > linguists
> > > > express in books about African American Vernacular English and books
> > about
> > > > sign languages.
> > > >
> > > > From page 60 of *The Power of Babel*:
> > > >
> > > > "[D]espite the almost irresistible pull of the sociologically based
> > > > evaluations that attach to dialects, there is no such thing as human
> > beings
> > > > speaking 'bad grammar.' There are no dialects in any way analyzable
as
> > > > 'decayed' versions of the standard or of anything else. Why would
speech
> > > > 'decay' down in Cornwall but keep a stiff upper lip in the Central
> > Midlands?
> > > > Why would Latin 'crumble' in Picardy but for some reason just
'evolve'
> > > > around the Īle-de-France?"
> > > >
> > > > From page 214:
> > > >
> > > > "Sign languages are 'real' languages just like the spoken ones, with
> > > > grammar, complexity, and nuance; second-language speakers even
contrast
> > > > markedly with native ones in regard to fluency, thus having an
'accent'
> > in
> > > > their sign language."
> > > >
> > > > In contrast to that, he refers to pidgins at one point as
> > "half-languages."
> > >
> > > The above three quotations and the final statement are absolutely
> > > commonplace in linguistics, but they have absolutely no bearing on the
> > > duality you invented.
> >
> > Can you take me by the hand and walk me through it, then? I'm serious,
here.
> > This is a case where something seems so utterly obvious that your
sentence
> > must be regarded as meaningless. Note that I am not claiming that the
> > duality I have been discussing is obviously true. I am saying is that
it is
> > impossible to look at what McWhorter has written and not see that he
> > believes in the precise duality which I have identified. He believes
that
> > some languages are more complex than others. In what way are they more
> > complex? Not in their ability to express ideas: It is clear he believes
all
> > (complete as opposed to pidgin) languages are equal in that regard. They
> > must, therefore, be complex in some other manner. What could that be?
Only
> > in the manner of form. And indeed, he spends a great part of the book
> > pointing to what he sees as these useless complexities. If you think he
does
> > not believe this, then what other possible complexity could he be
referring
> > to when he says "All Languages Are Not Equally Complex"? (And I'd like
to
> > note that if he is referring to some other possible complexity, than
*that*
> > complexity would form a new duality and the problem would not be
resolve.
> > I'd simply have to accept the new duality as representing his position
on
> > the matter.)
>
> I have no idea what he's talking about, since no one has ever measured
> the comparative complexity of languages, nor come up with a metric for
> it. That must be what Zobby was referring to by lots of recent
> discussion.
>
> Nor do I _still_ see how you get from his absurdity to a claim about
> what "linguists recognize."
Oh, I'm now willing to admit that the consensus among linguists on the
matter does not agree with me, if indeed there can be said to be a
consensus. However, you mentioned Otto Jespersen in another post. I am aware
that Jespersen created an artificial language, Novial, and I now see that he
was not only involved in the creation of Ido, an offshoot of Esperanto, but
held the position of president of the Ido Academy for three years. I don't
see how it is possible for him to have been involved in both projects if he
had not had a belief in the very duality I have been discussing.
>
> > > > > > "All Languages Are Not Equally Complex: What Makes the
Difference?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Some languages are by chance more "accreted" than others. It
is
> > > > > > sometimes said that all languages are equally complex, but more
> > > > > > properly,_ _all languages are complex to some degree__.
Overall, a
> > > > > > language like Fula is much more 'evolved' into uselessly baroque
> > > > > > elaborations (the verbs are as maddeningly complex as the the
nouns we
> > > > > > have seen) than Maori or, more to the point, English. The
Native
> > > > > > American language Cree is packed to the gills with 'extras' to
the
> > > > > > extent that an English speaker wonders how a child could even
learn
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (An example from Cree follows)
>
> So he's even more not much of a linguist, if he had trouble following
> Cree grammar. Central Algonquian was Bloomfield's parade example of
> "Native" languages being as rich -- not baroquely overrich -- as the
> hallowed Indo-European.
Hmm, I'm not sure if you can call a complexity in language "richness" if it
does not serve the function of communication. Perhaps the expression
"baroque" invokes "richness" to you, but to me it invokes odd and pointless
excess. "Richness" implies value, and there is no communicative value to the
particular type of complexity in question. McWhorter does find a particular
value in it, because he finds these languages more interesting, from the
linguist's point of view, than the "bland" languages which currently serve
as lingua francas in the world economy (he refers to a "'vanilla' quotient"
in these lingua francas, as I mentioned before, citing Swahili as an example
of a language to which one could apply that term). But this value for study
by a linguist is not a primary value of language: People use language
primarily to communicate. In that sort of complexity, the ability to express
complex ideas, Central Algonquian would of course be just as rich as any
other complete language.
Note that it can be argued that some aspects of Esperanto, which I have
identified as one of the less complex languages, involve this very same
baroqueness, this needless complexity. For example, the tenses in Esperanto
could be dropped and tense indicated only by context or some sort of marker
brought in only when context was insufficient.
Again, I am not insisting that such a duality as I have discussed exists. I
do insist that it is impossible to understand what McWhorter wrote, or why
Jespersen would be involved in the artificial language projects he was
involved in, unless they both were believers in the duality in question.
-- Raymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
- Next message: Franz Gnaedinger: "Re: Did the Trojan war really happen the way Homer said it did?"
- Previous message: Franz Gnaedinger: "Re: Linear A tablet Hagia Triada 95"
- Maybe in reply to: Raymond S. Wise: "Responding to a challenge"
- Next in thread: Peter T. Daniels: "Re: Responding to a challenge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
