Maybe it doesn’t make you a dietician, but our pal Milum is clearly in a league of his own.
That parable about howler monkeys–based on a true story, BTW, and soon to be a major motion picture–perfectly illustrates how English is superior to every other language that has existed, or ever will exist. Have you ever met a howler monkey who spoke French, or Spanish, or Chinese? No? So there!
What about Binary…j\k
And howler monkeys display an innate ability to fling the feces around, which indicates they have the potential to become valued members of this message board.
Perl and Python are good higher-level languages, while C++ and Assembly have their uses. Java is universal, technically, but tends to be slow, while C# is pushed by Microsoft. So each language has their own uses and virtues.
What? We’re talking about real languages? Oh, sorry. I give my hats off to Klingon.
Slightly off topic but I’ve always been curous. What would be the easiest language for an English speaker to learn?
I’ve read that English does not have many near neighbors.
yes, it’s called math.
Now if you folks are really truly duly interested in a honest debate about the relative merits of different languages, it should be obvious to even that fly on the end of your nose that we should all agree on the meaning of the term “language” before we can properly assign any comparative merits.
And therein lies a problem.
No two people on God’s green earth have an identical understanding of the meaning of the term “language”.
Worse, no one person has an identical understanding of the term “language” from one moment to the next (you know, the vagaries of neuron connections and such).
So if we ever hope to have a discussion/debate that might ferret out a wee bit of truth, then we must arbitrarily design a meaning of “language” that meets the needs of this debate.
Here’s mine…
language , noun - *the transfer of enviornmental information that is extracted by one human being and given to another so as to enhance species-surivial and to further successful sexual reproduction. *
Now let me see yours.
In other words, Milum, two geeks talking about Star Wars and D&D aren’t using language? We aren’t using language on this message board? Because I don’t think any of us are enhancing species survival or furthering successful sexual reproduction (well…except in rare cases) by communicating on here.
Being a native English speaker with a Thai wife, I am constantly comparing languages. Thai seems superb for describing family relationships, emotions, and debts/obligations. Many of the terms require fairly laborious explanations in English.
English, OTOH, seems a lot better for describing things precisely and for technical terms.
Anecdotal, I know.
mascaroni. I take your point about English “borrowing” words from other languages but does that actually make a difference? The locals here in Saudi are constantly pointing out the Arabic roots of “million,” “admiral,” and several others but I don’t see what difference it makes. Those words are standard English now.
Regards
Testy
Excuse me** jayjay**, but if I use your response as an example, I did a poor job of making my point. My point is this…
When we (humans) discuss a value ( supreme) between two or more entities ( languages ) we must state the purpose of the entity ( language ) before we can judge which more perfectly realizes its * rasion d’ tre*. To do otherwise is to gossip.
By the way, what definition of “language” did you perfer?
How about Merriam-Webster, i.e. a real dictionary whose job is to define words from a relatively objective viewpoint rather than the viewpoint of someone trying to fit the definition into his previous bullrefuse howler monkey “language” example?
language: a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings.
(the above post was in response to my initial post to the OP, my apologies about the two-day delay, I wasn’t on the boards all weekend - Ol’Gaffer)
This is exactly my point. What I was attempting to say (in stunningly clear, precise, and superior English) was that Linguists (a term invoked by the OP) do not discuss languages in terms of “better” or “worse.” By using these terms, the OP is being judgemental and is requesting linguistic data to support a particular position, one that is completely untenable (as far as Linguistics goes).
Very good,** jayjay**, now you are begining to put your thoughts in order so that you might contribute to a worthwhile discussion. Except for that gol awful definition that you got from Merriam-Webster.
Are we to judge the language best, that elucidates best? Or the one most systematic? How about the one that has signs, gestures, sounds and marks, that are the most conventional?
No no no , that’ll never do. We need a definition that points towards the purpose of language so that we can agree on a starting point for our discussion.
Don’t be lazy, wrinkle your brain.
The irony overwhelms me.
Okay, just going from this thread, let’s say the best language is the one that communicates family relationships most precisely and economically. Wow…that would apparently be Thai!
Or maybe the best language is the one that communicates where a predator is most effectively. Must be howler monkey!
The idea of a “superior” language presupposes some sort of purpose. The problem here is that language in general has an enormous multitude of purposes. Which one do you want to focus on? Family relationships? Conveyance of environmental danger? Political discussion? Business relationships? Sexual negotiations? Musical facility?
The idea of choosing a superior language is ridiculous when you consider the many different uses that we humans put language to. This is one of the reasons no professional (or even ardent hobbyist) linguist will ever tell you that there’s any such thing as a superior language.
**
Ain’t it the truth, jayjay. So many uses, so many variables. Besides professional linguist tell us that there is no such thing as a superior language.
So now let us all sit down on the floor in a friendship circle, then hold hands and sing “We are the world, we are the people” while staring at our navels. ** () () () **
So, Milium, are you arguing that there is such a thing as a superior language, or not? I’m really not understanding what point you are trying to make, and it would be helpful if you could clarify.
Well** quelquechose** what I am attempting is to use the semantics of english language to try and provide a foundation, or rather, a platform, for the investigation of the question " Are some languages superior to others?".
Of course some languages are superior to others in time and place, that is obvious. (If you are in Po-go Po-go, you are better off speaking Po-go Po-goese. )
Here I assumed we were after a wider question.
( Damn, I wonder if Socrates had customers like you guys.)
Clearly the work of a stupid Kant.
May I suggest two books for you to read?
Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond
&
The Power of Babble by John McWhorter
The former does a masterful job of demolishing the idea that global disparities in prosperity and power are the result of “superior” or “inferior” cultures. (As opposed to more down-to-earth explanations such as access to domesticable animals, or navigable coasts, or prosperous overland trade routes.)
The latter is an equally eloquent dissertation on the ways in which languages evolve. Of particular interest are the chapters describing how being used as a lingua franca among non-native speakers will strip a language of it’s complexity and nuance.
Contrary to what you seem to think, “primitive” languages tend to be far more complex than English. But languages simpler than English (i.e. more regular and less inflected) exist as well, often in situations where different cultures have been forced to learn how to talk to each other. (Tok Pisin, for example.)
Languages adapt to the needs of their speakers. If a language is picked up by a large group of non-native speakers it tends to drop case and inflection. If instead it’s spoken for many generations by a relatively isolated group of speakers it tends to become more irregular and tonal.
The type of language spoken by a particular people is an effect, not a cause.
And finally, what do you mean by “superior”?
More complicated?
Less complicated?
Spoken by the most people?
By none of these standards is English “superior”.
There’s the right point, Milum. You’re trying to define the wrong word. It’s not about what you mean by “language”, but what you mean by “superior”. Superior in what way? What are the hallmarks of superiority? How do we recognize it?