Language/Language Learning

[Daistallia 2104]

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never said that the brain wasn't complex. I only stated that the brain is a computing device, which is a fact. I even made it clear that it's a very obfuscated and complicated computing device, and thus would require a very complex and advanced instruction set - such as what we perceive as "language" - to effectively convey data and procedures. There's a reason why we can't yet simply upload and download raw data to/from the brain, namely because of the brain's sheer complexity as a computer.

You seem to be mistaking rationalization for oversimplification, which is a dangerous assumption to make.

This whole discussion point goes back to your comparison of a point of English grammar to C++. So you would now say that it is not so simple as you seemed (at least to me) to be trying to imply with that anaology, yes?

My specific point wasn't the grammatical structure; that's no problem, and your argument is quite correct in that regard. My point in this instance was the relatively unpredictable pronunciation and spelling rules. Because of the sheer number of unique syllables in English, it's a lot harder to learn the words themselves, unless, of course, you had known the bases of those words from their source languages.

In this case, I'm assuming by pronunciation and spelling rules you simply mean the spelling rules in regards to pronunciation rather than the rules of pronunciation and the spelling rules. The spelling rules are not as regular as in some languages, yes, but there are regularities. See: http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j32/regular.php

As far as the number of unique syllables in English making it more difficult, again that's relative. While the syllable structure is among the more complex, the consonant inventory is average, and there are many possible features missing from the phonology that could make things much more difficult.

And theoretically there is no limit on lingual complexity. Why would it be impossible? Sure, we can hope that linguists would be sane enough to prevent it from happening, but there's not really anything preventing it from happening otherwise. It could very well surpass the point of full comprehension. Unless, that is, we assume that the human mind is of an infinite intellectual capacity, which is likely not an accurate assumption.

First a side note - linguists might record such a change in language, but could no more prevent it than Canute the Great could command the tide to halt.

Why it would be impossible for any natural language to become too complex to be learned is exactly that they are natural. English is a product and function of the brain. It's simply not possible for the brain to produce a natural language that cannot be learned as an L1.

[Daistallia 2104]

Now, this seems interesting. You have claimed that more easy is not a valid construct as it isn't used. Now you want linguists to confirm that there is a commonly made distinction between technically correct and correct. Personally I'd wash my hands of this linguistics.

I stated that, by the standards of linguistics, "more easy" was an invalid construct. Fassoon made a claim that it fell under a catagory of technically correct. I said that said catagory does not exists in linguistics. He continued to claim it did. When asked to provide reliable evidence that such a catagory did indeed exist, he has failed to do so.

[Kirrig]

Now, this seems interesting. You have claimed that more easy is not a valid construct as it isn't used. Now you want linguists to confirm that there is a commonly made distinction between technically correct and correct. Personally I'd wash my hands of this linguistics.

I stated that, by the standards of linguistics, "more easy" was an invalid construct. Fassoon made a claim that it fell under a catagory of technically correct. I said that said catagory does not exists in linguistics. He continued to claim it did. When asked to provide reliable evidence that such a catagory did indeed exist, he has failed to do so.

Very well. But linguists should take their cue from the world around them. In this case, they haven't. In the former they have. Therefore the study is invalidated.

[Daistallia 2104]

I stated that, by the standards of linguistics, "more easy" was an invalid construct. Fassoon made a claim that it fell under a catagory of technically correct. I said that said catagory does not exists in linguistics. He continued to claim it did. When asked to provide reliable evidence that such a catagory did indeed exist, he has failed to do so.

Very well. But linguists should take their cue from the world around them. In this case, they haven't. In the former they have. Therefore the study is invalidated.

Actually that's exactly what linguists do - study languages as they actually exist. Your getting grumpy at how linguistics actually work does about as much good as getting grumpy at how physics works.

YellowApple, I just serendipitously opedned a thread on another forum which had the this fun diagram, somewhat related to the discussion of the complexity of englangs vs natlangs.

[Kirrig]

Very well. But linguists should take their cue from the world around them. In this case, they haven't. In the former they have. Therefore the study is invalidated.

Actually that's exactly what linguists do - study languages as they actually exist. Your getting grumpy at how linguistics actually work does about as much good as getting grumpy at how physics works.

YellowApple, I just serendipitously opedned a thread on another forum which had the this fun diagram, somewhat related to the discussion of the complexity of englangs vs natlangs.

Yes. You'll note that is what I have said. However, they have not been consistent enough, which is my point, for it to be valid anymore.

[Daistallia 2104]

Actually that's exactly what linguists do - study languages as they actually exist. Your getting grumpy at how linguistics actually work does about as much good as getting grumpy at how physics works.

YellowApple, I just serendipitously opedned a thread on another forum which had the this fun diagram, somewhat related to the discussion of the complexity of englangs vs natlangs.

Yes. You'll note that is what I have said. However, they have not been consistent enough, which is my point, for it to be valid anymore.

Thank you for your oh so insightful and learned critique. Please come back and comment when you have soemthing more worthwhile to say than "the world doesn't work the way I think it ought to!"

[Dagnia]

I also love learning languages and hope to become pentilingual. German was my first foreign language and I have become proficient enough in it that I think at this point I could be considered bilingual. Arabic and Chinese are the ones I hope to make my third and fourth languages. I am also working on my own conlang (based largely on semitic languages, particularly Arabic, but unique enough to be considered its own) that I hope to become my fifth. Others I hope to achieve some fluency in are Farsi, Russian, Korean, Coptic and Ancient Egyptian. I have bought books on all of these languages and study when I have free time (don't have much, which is why I have only made it through the first few chapters of the Russian, Ancient Egyptian and Coptic books and barely cracked open the Farsi book while the Korean one is one of those "First 100 Words" books, so doesn't really count).

The original post by Panmen says he had a tough time with Chinese, which I actually found easier than German and Arabic. The grammar is ridiculously simple and when learning a language, you are going to have to learn thousands of words anyway, so you might as well have characters to remember them by. When you really make an effort to study it, you will find there is a secret to learning it that you will find very difficult to put into words, but when you have really worked at it, everything becomes very easy but still very rewarding.

[Kirrig]

Yes. You'll note that is what I have said. However, they have not been consistent enough, which is my point, for it to be valid anymore.

Thank you for your oh so insightful and learned critique. Please come back and comment when you have soemthing more worthwhile to say than "the world doesn't work the way I think it ought to!"

Short and sharp, no room for misunderstanding.

The linguists take their cue from the world. Therefore, they do not like more easy. However, they also don't like the distiction between technically correct and correct. (Which is ironic because more easy is technically correct because the linguists say it isn't correct.) Now, this is a case where they have not taken their cue from the world. Therefore, this means that the study of linguistics is invalid because it doesn't do what it is meant to.

[Daistallia 2104]

The linguists take their cue from the world. Therefore, they do not like more easy. However, they also don't like the distiction between technically correct and correct. (Which is ironic because more easy is technically correct because the linguists say it isn't correct.) Now, this is a case where they have not taken their cue from the world. Therefore, this means that the study of linguistics is invalid because it doesn't do what it is meant to.

Your saying that you want such a catagory to exist when those who study how things work agree that it doesn't still won't make it so anymore than if you were saying you want light to propagate through the luminiferous aether when physicist agree it doesn't.

[Kirrig]

The linguists take their cue from the world. Therefore, they do not like more easy. However, they also don't like the distiction between technically correct and correct. (Which is ironic because more easy is technically correct because the linguists say it isn't correct.) Now, this is a case where they have not taken their cue from the world. Therefore, this means that the study of linguistics is invalid because it doesn't do what it is meant to.

Your saying that you want such a catagory to exist when those who study how things work agree that it doesn't still won't make it so anymore than if you were saying you want light to propagate through the luminiferous aether when physicist agree it doesn't.

Then they aren't very good at their job. (Not the physicists.)

The study how language is used in teh world around them, correct? The distinction is used in the world around them. Therefore, if they don't like it their profession is invalidated.

[Daistallia 2104]

Your saying that you want such a catagory to exist when those who study how things work agree that it doesn't still won't make it so anymore than if you were saying you want light to propagate through the luminiferous aether when physicist agree it doesn't.

Then they aren't very good at their job. (Not the physicists.)

The study how language is used in teh world around them, correct? The distinction is used in the world around them. Therefore, if they don't like it their profession is invalidated.

So all science is now invalidated because of language usage? Right... Like I said, come back when you have something whorthwhile to say.

[Kirrig]

Then they aren't very good at their job. (Not the physicists.)

The study how language is used in teh world around them, correct? The distinction is used in the world around them. Therefore, if they don't like it their profession is invalidated.

So all science is now invalidated because of language usage? Right... Like I said, come back when you have something whorthwhile to say.

Actually, I have no idea how you've reached this train of thought.

Example: Newton observes nature and creates his theory of gravity. Later it is observed that he was wrong, so ammendments were made and a new theory was developed.

[Kirrig]

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never said that the brain wasn't complex. I only stated that the brain is a computing device, which is a fact. I even made it clear that it's a very obfuscated and complicated computing device, and thus would require a very complex and advanced instruction set - such as what we perceive as "language" - to effectively convey data and procedures. There's a reason why we can't yet simply upload and download raw data to/from the brain, namely because of the brain's sheer complexity as a computer.

You seem to be mistaking rationalization for oversimplification, which is a dangerous assumption to make.

This whole discussion point goes back to your comparison of a point of English grammar to C++. So you would now say that it is not so simple as you seemed (at least to me) to be trying to imply with that anaology, yes?

My specific point wasn't the grammatical structure; that's no problem, and your argument is quite correct in that regard. My point in this instance was the relatively unpredictable pronunciation and spelling rules. Because of the sheer number of unique syllables in English, it's a lot harder to learn the words themselves, unless, of course, you had known the bases of those words from their source languages.

In this case, I'm assuming by pronunciation and spelling rules you simply mean the spelling rules in regards to pronunciation rather than the rules of pronunciation and the spelling rules. The spelling rules are not as regular as in some languages, yes, but there are regularities. See: http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j32/regular.php

As far as the number of unique syllables in English making it more difficult, again that's relative. While the syllable structure is among the more complex, the consonant inventory is average, and there are many possible features missing from the phonology that could make things much more difficult.

And theoretically there is no limit on lingual complexity. Why would it be impossible? Sure, we can hope that linguists would be sane enough to prevent it from happening, but there's not really anything preventing it from happening otherwise. It could very well surpass the point of full comprehension. Unless, that is, we assume that the human mind is of an infinite intellectual capacity, which is likely not an accurate assumption.

First a side note - linguists might record such a change in language, but could no more prevent it than Canute the Great could command the tide to halt.

Why it would be impossible for any natural language to become too complex to be learned is exactly that they are natural. English is a product and function of the brain. It's simply not possible for the brain to produce a natural language that cannot be learned as an L1.

\


Perhaps the spelling journal would like to know that have has different pronounciations in different contexts? I haff to go now. I hav a dog.

[Kirrig]

This whole discussion point goes back to your comparison of a point of English grammar to C++. So you would now say that it is not so simple as you seemed (at least to me) to be trying to imply with that anaology, yes?



In this case, I'm assuming by pronunciation and spelling rules you simply mean the spelling rules in regards to pronunciation rather than the rules of pronunciation and the spelling rules. The spelling rules are not as regular as in some languages, yes, but there are regularities. See: http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j32/regular.php

As far as the number of unique syllables in English making it more difficult, again that's relative. While the syllable structure is among the more complex, the consonant inventory is average, and there are many possible features missing from the phonology that could make things much more difficult.



First a side note - linguists might record such a change in language, but could no more prevent it than Canute the Great could command the tide to halt.

Why it would be impossible for any natural language to become too complex to be learned is exactly that they are natural. English is a product and function of the brain. It's simply not possible for the brain to produce a natural language that cannot be learned as an L1.

\


Perhaps the spelling journal would like to know that have has different pronounciations in different contexts? I haff to go now. I hav a dog.

Spelling reform is not needed. English is a natural language.

[Daistallia 2104]

So all science is now invalidated because of language usage? Right... Like I said, come back when you have something whorthwhile to say.

Actually, I have no idea how you've reached this train of thought.

Example: Newton observes nature and creates his theory of gravity. Later it is observed that he was wrong, so ammendments were made and a new theory was developed.

You claim that linguistics is invalid because it uses a term differently from how it may be used in other cases. Since they often do exactly this, quod erat demonstrandum, all sciences must also be invalid. (Your argument bears a marked resemblance to the whole crazy, ignorant creationists bit about how "evolution is just a theory" for another good example.)

In this case, I'm assuming by pronunciation and spelling rules you simply mean the spelling rules in regards to pronunciation rather than the rules of pronunciation and the spelling rules. The spelling rules are not as regular as in some languages, yes, but there are regularities. See: http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j32/regular.php

Perhaps the spelling journal would like to know that have has different pronounciations in different contexts? I haff to go now. I hav a dog.

You didn't bother to read the article at all I see.

[Kirrig]

Actually, I have no idea how you've reached this train of thought.

Example: Newton observes nature and creates his theory of gravity. Later it is observed that he was wrong, so ammendments were made and a new theory was developed.

You claim that linguistics is invalid because it uses a term differently from how it may be used in other cases. Since they often do exactly this, quod erat demonstrandum, all sciences must also be invalid. (Your argument bears a marked resemblance to the whole crazy, ignorant creationists bit about how "evolution is just a theory" for another good example.)

Perhaps the spelling journal would like to know that have has different pronounciations in different contexts? I haff to go now. I hav a dog.

You didn't bother to read the article at all I see.

You're right, I didn't because like I said I don't believe it needs change. I referred to another page where it was not mentioned.

Yes, wait, no, what you said is way off on a tangent. In fact you've reached a third circle. I'd like some sourcery to go with this, now.

I claim that linguistics is invalid, because it is saying that more easy is wrong because it isn't used. A distinction is used between tecnically correct and correct and yet linguistics says it is wrong, too.

[YellowApple]

This will do as far as I am concerned. It says linguists up the top...

If it won't do, not my problem.

As long as your verbs agree then they both are technically correct. There may be some linguist psycho-babble about which is which, but they are both mechanically sound.

Seeing as that's clearly an opinion byu someone who's not only unfamiliar with what is considered correct in linguistics, but who is dismissive thereof, nope, it doesn't support your claim that there is a catagory of "technicaklly correct" at use in linguistics.

> Discusses the use of proper English grammar.
> Misspells "technically" as "technicaklly".

trollface.jpg

Anyway, by that logic, the evidence you cite in your favor is equally invalid, as it is based on the opinions of those who deem themselves "linguists", as "expert" as these opinions are. Really, the only definite facts involved in this entire debate are those regarding the structural syntax of the English language - i.e. the same syntax that dictates "more easy" to be a valid construct, even if never-to-be-used in light of the existence of the word "easier" - and those regarding the brain as a computer and languages as instruction sets for the brain.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never said that the brain wasn't complex. I only stated that the brain is a computing device, which is a fact. I even made it clear that it's a very obfuscated and complicated computing device, and thus would require a very complex and advanced instruction set - such as what we perceive as "language" - to effectively convey data and procedures. There's a reason why we can't yet simply upload and download raw data to/from the brain, namely because of the brain's sheer complexity as a computer.

You seem to be mistaking rationalization for oversimplification, which is a dangerous assumption to make.

This whole discussion point goes back to your comparison of a point of English grammar to C++. So you would now say that it is not so simple as you seemed (at least to me) to be trying to imply with that anaology, yes?

I never implied that English was simple at all, even in the C++ analogy. What I did imply was that they both are used in an identical fashion, only on two radically different forms of computing device. Although your assumption is understandable, and partially my own fault for not clarifying this, it's an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

My specific point wasn't the grammatical structure; that's no problem, and your argument is quite correct in that regard. My point in this instance was the relatively unpredictable pronunciation and spelling rules. Because of the sheer number of unique syllables in English, it's a lot harder to learn the words themselves, unless, of course, you had known the bases of those words from their source languages.

In this case, I'm assuming by pronunciation and spelling rules you simply mean the spelling rules in regards to pronunciation rather than the rules of pronunciation and the spelling rules. The spelling rules are not as regular as in some languages, yes, but there are regularities. See: http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j32/regular.php

As far as the number of unique syllables in English making it more difficult, again that's relative. While the syllable structure is among the more complex, the consonant inventory is average, and there are many possible features missing from the phonology that could make things much more difficult.

Yes, you have the "regularities", but then you have the completely bizarre irregularities that you're hard pressed to find in other common languages. Case in point: "onomatopoeia". The only other Latin-script language I can think of with as many randomly silent letters in words would be French (-eaux and such). And even then.

You do have a valid point in that there are features that - had they been included in English - would have made things more difficult. Vowels, however, are some of the most unpredictable I've seen. At least the other common languages have a clear definition of how a vowel should be pronounced. In English, it doesn't. "A" will have a different sound in "apple", "ate", "broad", and "talk", for example. In another example, spelling would make one initially believe "toad" and "broad" to rhyme. "Through" is yet another completely un-obvious word to spell, as is "trough", and the omission of the "h" completely changes the interpreted pronunciation of "ough". This is all in direct contrast to many other languages, which have much clearer definitions of how each vowel and consonant should sound and be spelled.

And theoretically there is no limit on lingual complexity. Why would it be impossible? Sure, we can hope that linguists would be sane enough to prevent it from happening, but there's not really anything preventing it from happening otherwise. It could very well surpass the point of full comprehension. Unless, that is, we assume that the human mind is of an infinite intellectual capacity, which is likely not an accurate assumption.

First a side note - linguists might record such a change in language, but could no more prevent it than Canute the Great could command the tide to halt.

Why it would be impossible for any natural language to become too complex to be learned is exactly that they are natural. English is a product and function of the brain. It's simply not possible for the brain to produce a natural language that cannot be learned as an L1.

Sure it can. My brain can produce random words and assign arbitrary meanings to them, but assign so many words to meanings that it eventually forgets what many of those meanings were to begin with. Though in practice we would likely have developed a new language long before we've exceeded our brains' capacities to store our languages' dictionaries, in theory it is actually quite possible to no longer be able to comprehend what our brains just created.

[Great Nepal]

Can speak Nepali, Sanskrit, Hindi, English. Ignore the fact that Nepali and Hindi is very similar whereas Sanskrit is only useful while reading ancient religious texts - which I dont.
School offers French and Spanish as standards but you can sit GCSE exams for about 30 languages - although I have more than enough to do language in school.

[Kirrig]

Actually, I have no idea how you've reached this train of thought.

Example: Newton observes nature and creates his theory of gravity. Later it is observed that he was wrong, so ammendments were made and a new theory was developed.

You claim that linguistics is invalid because it uses a term differently from how it may be used in other cases. Since they often do exactly this, quod erat demonstrandum, all sciences must also be invalid. (Your argument bears a marked resemblance to the whole crazy, ignorant creationists bit about how "evolution is just a theory" for another good example.)

Perhaps the spelling journal would like to know that have has different pronounciations in different contexts? I haff to go now. I hav a dog.

You didn't bother to read the article at all I see.

Maybe I'll read it when the author learns to spell. It is seriously annoying and not at all clever.

[Kirrig]

But if you wanted to write that in the tongues of the first speaker's of English it should be:

Lǣtan me sēon gif mæg ic wrītan mid words þæt cumen from þā tunges of þā fyrst maðeleres of Ænglisc. Ic willa ābrēoðan.
Also I hate to point it out to you, but speaker comes from Anglo-Norman, a dialect of Norman French spoken in England. And Anglo-Norman, of course mixed with (what at the time was simply "English") Old-English/ Anglo-Saxon, to develop Middle English. And therefore one cannot say that fail is the only word that comes from the "first" English language, Anglo-Saxon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, I know English and Old English (Anglo-Saxon). I am taking middle-English classes right now, and Latin classes.

Hmm, Old English comes suprisingly easy to me, though I hardly get any exposure to it.

Not surprising in the least, seeing as the North Germanic languages arguably constitute a dialect continuum. These are some of the best examples of the distinction between a language and a dialect I brought up earlier in this thread ("a language is a dialect with an army and navy").

I long for the days that Dutch and German were in one dialect continuum(19th century).

Unless I'm mistaken, you must be in the "Six Counties" or at a private school, then. (I understood all publicly supported schools in the Republic had to offer Gaeilge.) That's too bad, as language suppression is an awful education policy.

It is indeed. Too bad that until recently even western nations were still doing it (eg. Belgium). Perhaps some are even now.

Suppose the Germanic languages never diverged... That is to say, imagine that the Viking habit of travelling had been a cultural trait and there was enough contact between what became English, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, German, Norwegian, Frisian, Icelandic, Faroese speakers that even now the differences are no greater as that of a Australian and a Geordie.

[Kirrig]

Seeing as that's clearly an opinion byu someone who's not only unfamiliar with what is considered correct in linguistics, but who is dismissive thereof, nope, it doesn't support your claim that there is a catagory of "technicaklly correct" at use in linguistics.

> Discusses the use of proper English grammar.
> Misspells "technically" as "technicaklly".

trollface.jpg

Anyway, by that logic, the evidence you cite in your favor is equally invalid, as it is based on the opinions of those who deem themselves "linguists", as "expert" as these opinions are. Really, the only definite facts involved in this entire debate are those regarding the structural syntax of the English language - i.e. the same syntax that dictates "more easy" to be a valid construct, even if never-to-be-used in light of the existence of the word "easier" - and those regarding the brain as a computer and languages as instruction sets for the brain.

This whole discussion point goes back to your comparison of a point of English grammar to C++. So you would now say that it is not so simple as you seemed (at least to me) to be trying to imply with that anaology, yes?

I never implied that English was simple at all, even in the C++ analogy. What I did imply was that they both are used in an identical fashion, only on two radically different forms of computing device. Although your assumption is understandable, and partially my own fault for not clarifying this, it's an incorrect assumption nonetheless.

In this case, I'm assuming by pronunciation and spelling rules you simply mean the spelling rules in regards to pronunciation rather than the rules of pronunciation and the spelling rules. The spelling rules are not as regular as in some languages, yes, but there are regularities. See: http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j32/regular.php

As far as the number of unique syllables in English making it more difficult, again that's relative. While the syllable structure is among the more complex, the consonant inventory is average, and there are many possible features missing from the phonology that could make things much more difficult.

Yes, you have the "regularities", but then you have the completely bizarre irregularities that you're hard pressed to find in other common languages. Case in point: "onomatopoeia". The only other Latin-script language I can think of with as many randomly silent letters in words would be French (-eaux and such). And even then.

You do have a valid point in that there are features that - had they been included in English - would have made things more difficult. Vowels, however, are some of the most unpredictable I've seen. At least the other common languages have a clear definition of how a vowel should be pronounced. In English, it doesn't. "A" will have a different sound in "apple", "ate", "broad", and "talk", for example. In another example, spelling would make one initially believe "toad" and "broad" to rhyme. "Through" is yet another completely un-obvious word to spell, as is "trough", and the omission of the "h" completely changes the interpreted pronunciation of "ough". This is all in direct contrast to many other languages, which have much clearer definitions of how each vowel and consonant should sound and be spelled.

First a side note - linguists might record such a change in language, but could no more prevent it than Canute the Great could command the tide to halt.

Why it would be impossible for any natural language to become too complex to be learned is exactly that they are natural. English is a product and function of the brain. It's simply not possible for the brain to produce a natural language that cannot be learned as an L1.

Sure it can. My brain can produce random words and assign arbitrary meanings to them, but assign so many words to meanings that it eventually forgets what many of those meanings were to begin with. Though in practice we would likely have developed a new language long before we've exceeded our brains' capacities to store our languages' dictionaries, in theory it is actually quite possible to no longer be able to comprehend what our brains just created.

Quite. But I think that what we will see is a point where many people's word horizon's are reached, rather than an inability to learn. English seems to be getting more complex, but that's only because it is different. Perhaps, English is what languages were going towards before humans settled down.

The example here is the sarifice of the der/die/das types and the different cases, formal vs informal pronouns... In exhange English has some funny spelling rules: if they were really bad no-one would bother with them, English has always changed.

[YellowApple]

> Discusses the use of proper English grammar.
> Misspells "technically" as "technicaklly".

trollface.jpg

Anyway, by that logic, the evidence you cite in your favor is equally invalid, as it is based on the opinions of those who deem themselves "linguists", as "expert" as these opinions are. Really, the only definite facts involved in this entire debate are those regarding the structural syntax of the English language - i.e. the same syntax that dictates "more easy" to be a valid construct, even if never-to-be-used in light of the existence of the word "easier" - and those regarding the brain as a computer and languages as instruction sets for the brain.




I never implied that English was simple at all, even in the C++ analogy. What I did imply was that they both are used in an identical fashion, only on two radically different forms of computing device. Although your assumption is understandable, and partially my own fault for not clarifying this, it's an incorrect assumption nonetheless.



Yes, you have the "regularities", but then you have the completely bizarre irregularities that you're hard pressed to find in other common languages. Case in point: "onomatopoeia". The only other Latin-script language I can think of with as many randomly silent letters in words would be French (-eaux and such). And even then.

You do have a valid point in that there are features that - had they been included in English - would have made things more difficult. Vowels, however, are some of the most unpredictable I've seen. At least the other common languages have a clear definition of how a vowel should be pronounced. In English, it doesn't. "A" will have a different sound in "apple", "ate", "broad", and "talk", for example. In another example, spelling would make one initially believe "toad" and "broad" to rhyme. "Through" is yet another completely un-obvious word to spell, as is "trough", and the omission of the "h" completely changes the interpreted pronunciation of "ough". This is all in direct contrast to many other languages, which have much clearer definitions of how each vowel and consonant should sound and be spelled.



Sure it can. My brain can produce random words and assign arbitrary meanings to them, but assign so many words to meanings that it eventually forgets what many of those meanings were to begin with. Though in practice we would likely have developed a new language long before we've exceeded our brains' capacities to store our languages' dictionaries, in theory it is actually quite possible to no longer be able to comprehend what our brains just created.

Quite. But I think that what we will see is a point where many people's word horizon's are reached, rather than an inability to learn. English seems to be getting more complex, but that's only because it is different. Perhaps, English is what languages were going towards before humans settled down.

The example here is the sarifice of the der/die/das types and the different cases, formal vs informal pronouns... In exhange English has some funny spelling rules: if they were really bad no-one would bother with them, English has always changed.

When it gets to the point where word horizons are reached so quickly that one cannot learn sufficient vocabulary to communicate clearly before reaching it, then we have a problem.

[Kirrig]

Quite. But I think that what we will see is a point where many people's word horizon's are reached, rather than an inability to learn. English seems to be getting more complex, but that's only because it is different. Perhaps, English is what languages were going towards before humans settled down.

The example here is the sarifice of the der/die/das types and the different cases, formal vs informal pronouns... In exhange English has some funny spelling rules: if they were really bad no-one would bother with them, English has always changed.

When it gets to the point where word horizons are reached so quickly that one cannot learn sufficient vocabulary to communicate clearly before reaching it, then we have a problem.

Quite. Hopefully, people won't fill their horizons with non-useful words. As long as we can retain:

A/the/have/and/but/two/the pronouns/some more basic verbs/with/at/on/the numbers/the colours/old/young/school/work/a few jobs/

we should be okay.

[YellowApple]

When it gets to the point where word horizons are reached so quickly that one cannot learn sufficient vocabulary to communicate clearly before reaching it, then we have a problem.

Quite. Hopefully, people won't fill their horizons with non-useful words. As long as we can retain:

A/the/have/and/but/two/the pronouns/some more basic verbs/with/at/on/the numbers/the colours/old/young/school/work/a few jobs/

we should be okay.

No nouns? Oh dear.

trollface.jpg

[Kirrig]

Quite. Hopefully, people won't fill their horizons with non-useful words. As long as we can retain:

A/the/have/and/but/two/the pronouns/some more basic verbs/with/at/on/the numbers/the colours/old/young/school/work/a few jobs/

we should be okay.

No nouns? Oh dear.

trollface.jpg

School, work and a few jobs are all nouns. The old and the young are also nouns.