I have some problems with metaphors we use to describe language.  The
language as tool metaphor has some problems.  It does not suggest the creative
nature of language.
 
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:28:33 +0000 Norman Carlson said:
>Hence, wouldn't a language which could effectively do a variety of
>things be superior to one which is more limited in the variety of things
>it can do?
 
I sure wish I knew what this meant.  I can not think of a language that
can not do anything any other language can do.  English has huge
advantages in the world in whole domains of knowledge: computers, medicine
physics, international business.  However, this has nothing to do with
the English language but everything to do with the economic and political
power of people who speak English as their first language.
 
>Another thought: might not ease-of-acquisition be a factor in judging
>languages on a good--better--best scale?  (Which is to say, I guess,
>isn't a language that has a logical system of verb conjugations superior
>to one that has a considerable number of "irregular" conjugations that
>may be easy enough for a native speaker who literally spends a lifetime
>learning the language?)
 
I actually like this proposal.  In fact, I gave a version of this question
in my linguistics class.   Which of the following paradigms is easier to
learn and, thus, "better"?
 
  Paradigm 1                      Paradigm 2
   I don't like                    I   don't like
   You don't like                  You don't like
   She doesn't like                She don't like
   We don't like                   We  don't like
   They don't like                 They don't like
 
Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University, [log in to unmask]
>Norm Carlson