Linguistics - is there a supreme language?

Great Debates
81

There is something called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also know as the Whorfian hypothesis, which states that language affects thought. Something called Loglan, logical language, was developed to test this but I haven’t heard about any conclusive results.

English makes it possible to say things like: “I’m going out of my mind.” Where are you when you are out of your mind?

My Spanish teacher said they don’t have spelling bees in Spanish because spelling and pronunciation are so consistent. That must save a lot of time learing to spell. George Bernard Shaw suggested changing the spelling of English words. Too many conservatives in the world.

Dal Timgar

82

Probably ebonics.

83

Personally, I find Urdu to be the most lyrical.

84

This, gang, is of course, very very true. If the space that you live in is very limited in area, and the number of speakers of your language is very small, then the need for generalities is small too and your need to formulate mindboggling abstract concepts isn’t much necessary and so you will never be pressed to think like a Gyan9, or an Aeschines, or an Ol’Gaffer, or a YourOldBuddy, or a daniel801 or even del_timgar or the rest of you members of a supreme language - the best supreme languages of them all - >>>English<<<. :slight_smile:

85

Milum, you’re still ignoring what has been asserted (or at least hinted at) several times in this thread…that there is no evidence that ‘primitive’ societies have less complex linguistic structures, or that they are capable of less powerful abstract thought. Selective quotation from a dead psychologist doesn’t change anything. Especially when based on ignorant and implicitly racist analyses of other languages.

86

But GorillaMan, that which is asserted is not always fact. Think about this example…

A woman and a man live together but they don’t live in the same house.
The man comes home from work and sits down in his favorite chair which is an off-mauve naugahyde doubled stiched Laz-e-boy recliner. He doesn’t know this, to him it is just his favorite chair. The man looks but doesn’t see the chartrouse dannish-knit skirt around the cherrywood occasional night stand that picks up that directs the eye towards the lime tinted ersatz ming vase carefully placed on the dark walnut table near the black trimed blue-green door bought and installed by Home Depot for $149.95.

The point.

The man is a hunter. He abstracts his world of a million trees.
The woman lives in a smaller world. Each object in her world has a niche and a name so there is no need to abstract.

Would you rather be considered Politically Correct by your peers if it required rejecting the reality of this world, or would you rather risk being called a racist in your ongoing attemp to understand the truth? Be honest.

87

Of course it is the case that a language will not significantly develop beyond its intended need or use. This is as true of English as anything else.

88

I think most definitions of “superior” are so value-laden that they cannot rise above the level of subjectivity.

But languages evolve. There is a language that cells use to constuct proteins: it’s called the genetic code. Many liguists and information scientists will tell you the genetic code is pretty much a mess, an obvious accretion of billions of years of random tweaking coupled with natural selection. It has no real logic to it, and could be better in a number of definable ways. Yet it has become largely standardized; the world over, in every living thing, the codon ATG codes for methionine. On another planet, it may be different, but on earth, there is a nearly “universal language” of sorts, written in our DNA. The fact that there are a very few organisms that utilize some"alternate" codons does indicate that the genetic code as it exists is not the product of some historical accident that froze it for all eternity; it does evolve, and it’s resonable to conclude that one form of the code has almost entirely beaten out the alternatives. It’s not pretty, but it does greatly predominate. Life, it seems, has indeed standardized, and we might reasonably conclude that the so-called “universal genetic code” is the best one nature has come up with so far. It is the “superior” language for encoding proteins.

When I look at meme theory (a la Richard Dawkins, et al.), I can’t help think that random mutation and natural selection, the basic mechanisms of biological evolution, are truly universal in their scope, and don’t just influence things that we generally think of as being “alive”. All “life”, in fact, may just be a vector for the reproduction and evolution of memes, starting at the basic level of the genetic code written in our DNA, and working right up to pop songs, poems, constitutions, and even religions. Minds are the ultimate substrate in which memes “live”, and language is the means by which they reproduce and evovle. Some memes are more “fit” than others and proliferate. Some are unfit and “die” without even reaching another substrate.

As DNA has proven to be the best medium for “writing” and transferring the genetic code, so a language may prove to have properties making it the superior means of meme mutation and reproduction. DNA is, chemically speaking, a relatively robust molecule; its building blocks require only about 50 or so atoms to encode a bit of information, which is enough to make it structurally sound without making it totally immutable and unwieldy. It’s just stable enough sustain life without severly retarding evolution by being perfect in its fidelity from generation to generation. It’s strong, but changeable, and that makes it very powerful.

I bet the same is true of languages, and what drives the evolution of language, just like what drove the evolution of the genetic code, is the rate of mutation of, and the selective forces placed upon, memes. The structural integrity (or lack thereof) of the medium by which memes move from mind to mind, has a direct impact on these things. DNA is the medium all cells (I’m leaving out some viruses, which still ultimately rely on DNA) use to transfer the language of protein production. The standard genetic code is (almost) the universal language of protein production. DNA, and the code that is on it, have proven “superior”. Is it not reasonable that, in an analogous fashion, some laguage will also prove “superior”?

Given current trends, if I had to bet on what that language will be, I would say it would be largely a decendant of modern American English. Am. Eng. is simply becoming the de facto standard of commerce and technology, and those things rule in this world. Some people (like the French) try to fight it; many lament it; some feel insulted by it; some can’t understand it. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t have to be pretty, or elegant, or more efficient at any particular thing. It’s just got to have the best mix of qualities available at a given time, and natural selection takes care of the rest. The “superior” language, then, might be defined as the one that “wins”. As the world becomes a big global community, having one lingual standard is probably an inevitability. It looks like it’s going to be some form of English.

89

There’s no point here that has anything to do with linguistics. Start talking about REAL LANGUAGES, and we might get somewhere.

90

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that nowadays, lingua franca references French, is written in Italian, and pretty much means English.

91

Certainly erislover, except for those that develope serendipitously.

Look Loopydude, I am completely objective in determining a superior language, whatsamattau? :slight_smile:

But you are right. The evolution of words, and hence, language, is closely analogous to the chemical mechanics of DNA.
But the evolution of our languages is evenmoreso deterministic.

Uh, I hate to burst your word balloon ** GorillaMan**, but the study of linguistics has nothing to do with the understanding of language. The linguistics just get in the way of the semantics.
But just for kicks follow this exercise…

All languages are different otherwise they would be the same.
If all languages are different then they all can be rated from best to worse by any measure that we choose to use as a determinate.
So all languages are not the same.

Our job here is to find a worthwhile determinate.

92

The latest posts have reused the “most users make the best language” rhetoric with allowances for being primitive (to make up for the number of Mandarin speakers, I guess). Loopydude you forget the fact that English hasnt changed much in the last 300 years despite very different applications. Evolution of the language is hardly enough to make it superior based on the number of users, when in fact it hasnt changed all that much. I think you are right though about English getting more popular in the future.

I guess English could be useable if you fixed the writing system. Its of the chart for lack of clarity. Apparently kids in Iceland have a much easier time to learn to read and write because of how much the written word resembles the spoken word. Characters in English tend to represent multiple sounds. As someone noted spelling the word isnt even enough. You have to remember how they are pronounced especially because they tend to be stressed around the middle or the end but sometimes at the beginning. Icelandic words are uniformally stressed at the beginning. Underscoring English words might even be in order as well as adding at least 10 characters.

93

I can’t think of any conceivable interpretation of this somewhat ambiguous claim that makes it true. Care to explain exactly what you mean here?

94

Sure ** Sundog**, the statement simply declares that the science of linguistics (with a capital L) studies languages by beginning in the middle of languages and then they compare their findings and make rules and judgements and pronouncements. This practice is for the most part harmless, and on occasion those who practice this art can gather data of some use, but as it is in most aspects of reality, we must understand the purpose of a hammer before we can understand the hammer.

Semantics, the study of the meaning of words, is but a small aspect of the Science of Linguistics. And the big dog needs to get out of the way and let the little dog hunt.

I think that is what I meant.

95

Eh?

I don’t see how anybody has denied that.

Double eh?

Ehhhhhh?

96

Hey, 'Buddy,

You might note that the predominant genetic code probably hasn’t changed for hundreds of millions of years; yet it did evolve at some stage in history, does evolve a little even now, and could change in the future. Some scientists are literally altering bacterial genes for tRNA so that certain codons wind up coding for different amino acids, even amino acids the organism never used before. Oh-ho, you say, that’s not evolution, that’s engineering. Well, the organism is changed, is it not? And if humans in the future decide to muck around with our own genetic code, to optimize it, even if you might say this more resembles Lamarckian than Darwinian evolution, it’s evolution all the same.

One can also reference S.J. Gould’s theory of “punctuated equilibrium”, and apply it to languages. Not long after the Battle of Hastings, English/Anglo-Saxon changed radically. The changing political climate and the Black Death brought on a further dramatic change of “middle English” with the shift from Anglo-Norman to the English of Chaucer. The next great shift can be attributed in no small part to Bill Shakespeare and the printing press, which greatly accelerated the rate of adoption of the “Great Vowel Shift”. The printing press also hastened the standardization of spelling and grammar. You might say the mutation rate of English decreased greatly around the Eliziabethan era, and the only major changes since have been in vocabulary. This pattern, of rapid periods of great upheval separated by longer periods of relative stability, fits Punctuated Equilibrium to a T. Evolution isn’t about steady change. It’s about fits and bursts, brought on by a rapidly changing environment.

Thing is, most of the changing the world over appears to be in other languages, that, if anything, are becoming more and more Anglicised. It’s such a “problem” the French, for instance, have adopted laws to try to stop it. It looks like English is taking over. For whatever reason, it’s outcompeting other tongues. It doesn’t need to change much at this point, if it’s already beating the competition as it is. That’s how natural selection works. You say “more people use it, so it’s superior” is a fallacious argument, but I’m not so sure.

People don’t tend to think of rats and cockroaches as “superior” in most regards, but they’re survivors and proliferators. They move into and inhabit a wide variety of environments; they’re versitile, rugged omnivores, and the bodies and minds they have allow them to adjust quickly to a wide variety of challenges. They’re highly successful. Bacteria may be the most “superior” kingdom of organisms on the planet, as you can literally find them ANYWHERE. If we nuke ourselves and wipe out the human race, you can bet bacteria will still be around in vast numbers. Sure, we think we’re all that because we’ve got big brains. Big deal, says evolution. Can you live in a hot spring at the bottom of the ocean? Can you live in a lake under miles of ice? Can you live in rock fissures near the Earth’s mantle?

Maybe English is a kind of lingual cockroach. The French certainly think so. Maybe it’s ugly as sin, in a variety of ways. But it’s on the rise, and seems to proliferate wherever it goes. I honestly don’t know what the reason is, and I’m not sure it’s so important to pin down what, exactly, makes English such a success. The fact that it is says something.

Icelandic may be more elegant and easier to learn, but it obviously isn’t going anywhere beyond Iceland. Maybe that’s a shame, but evolution doesn’t care about aesthetics. It cares about reproduction and survival.

97

It certainly isn’t on the linguistic merits. Most likely, it has to do with the fact that the economic, cultural and media powerhouse of the world is an English-speaking country, and the biggest worldwide empire in the past 2-3 centuries was the British one.

98

I said…

…and nobody asked me what I meant.
Even I have to read the jumble of words above twice before the wording makes any sense.

But no, the ** GorillaMan ** wants me to explain a self-evident paragraph with obvious meaning and chooses to ignore the convoluted mumbo jumbo above that I find so profound.
Go figger…

99

Okay, in less convoluted terms: Linguists gather empirical data about language usage, and use it to extrapolate general rules. Is that what you mean? I don’t know how else to make sense of “beginning in the middle of languages.”

How can you say that this data is only useful “on occasion?” Are you advocating some sort of revolution in the field of linguistics?

I don’t follow. Is language the hammer, or is linguistics the hammer? If the latter, then open up to the first chapter of any introductory linguistics textbook for some insight into the purpose of linguistics. Still, I don’t see the relevance.

I don’t follow. Is semantics the little dog? Again, I still don’t see the relevance.

Ultimately, I still don’t see how this addresses the claim that the study of linguistics has nothing to do with understanding language, and I maintain that the study of linguistics has everything to do with understanding language.

100

So right you really are Sundog, except that I disagree with what you mean by “understanding”. Let’s take a vacuum cleaner fo example…

If you happen to live on a distant, dustless planet and you somehow come across a Hoover vacuum cleaner, you might marvel at the clever design, and carefully name and catalogue each compotent part, but you still won’t know what a valcuum cleaner is.
What you will need is a Hoover vacuum cleaner salesman, he will tell you the purpose of the machine and then you will “understand”.

The western study of language “Linguistics” does a lot of cataloging and naming and making rules. While the study of the meaning and purpose of language ( semantics) is delegated to the status of “speculative studies” and selects its flagbearers in door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesmen like the obscure Umberto Eco and the wild-eyed Norm Chomsky.