Re: Question about Spanish
- From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:19:45 GMT
Felix Rawlings wrote:
[snipping a great deal of, however entertaining, utter nonsense that I
don't wish to bother taking the time to refute, to get right to the
heart of the problem:]
We are not discussing here deep concepts of quantum field theory or
modular forms, which require lots of technical background. We are
discussing a simple assertion, to wit, whether some language derived from
Castilian is, or is not, as fully as expressive as that spoken by any
Castilian (your words). Your answer to this is an unqualified,
unsupported, dogmatic yes.
If you do not realize that the study of human language does involve
"deep concepts" that "require lots of technical background," then you
are more ignorant of linguistics than of quantum physics.
You needn't be ashamed; it's a common affliction, but a serious one
(among those who attempt to discuss language from a basis of ignorance)
nonetheless.
Suffice it to say that no one has ever discovered a language in which it
is not possible to express anything that can be expressed in any other
language.
Once again, I refer you to Wittgenstein. (The famous pianist's brother.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Question about Spanish
- From: foggytown
- Re: Question about Spanish
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Question about Spanish
- From: Felix Rawlings
- Re: Question about Spanish
- From: Felix Rawlings
- Re: Question about Spanish
- From: Harlan Messinger
- Re: Question about Spanish
- From: Felix Rawlings
- Re: Question about Spanish
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Question about Spanish
- From: Felix Rawlings
- Question about Spanish
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about Spanish
- Next by Date: Re: Question about Spanish
- Previous by thread: Re: Question about Spanish
- Next by thread: Re: Question about Spanish
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|