|
A conversation about languages and writing systems
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
Well, this thread is the revival of a serious discussion deleted in a couple of previous threads...
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
who deleted it ? :whip: there was some interesting conversation in there between me and Lira. Not to mention all those pictars and drunk nachos posts. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Interesting...although I'd be inclined to believe that a language with a lot more alphabets has a wider range of words, and words for many more expressions/experiences than a language with less number of alphabets. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
hhmm... there's no necessary correlation between these two facts, I think. English has an enormous vocabulary - as it's spoken in all continents and every community lives a different reality, thus resorting to different words - whereas Mongolian could be written with 3 different alphabets (the native Mongolian cursive alphabet, the Cyrillic Alphabet borrowed from Russia, and the Latin Alphabet). However, it's used by less than 6 million people, most of them living in the same area.
Sure, Mongolian is probably a rich language with a vast vocabulary, but I find it hard to believe that it's unexpectedly vaster than that of any other neighbouring language. |
We should rename this thread to "A conversation about languages and writing systems" or something of that sort :D |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
oh , that was good. :D
As for your reply, I'm still quite skeptical. But I totally suck at analyzing languages (since I've never formally studied Linguistics), idk how to correlate # of alphabets directly with the richness of language. Some how, it appears to be common sense to me. There must be a reason why a language has more alphabets. it must give the language more flexibility to create words for many more experiences than a language with less alphabets. |
... there we go, I'm adding a proper reply as soon as I arrive at my lovely "office" :p |
|
|
| smakmagik |
| so is this the thread to look in for future updates in this conversation? |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| If its not deleted again. :eyes: |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| yea I dont think it has to do with alphabet size, more ummm, I dunno usage....[cites the common example of the eskimos having 9000000 words for snow while we only have 1...snow] |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| I would imagine the real key is the number of users of a given language combined with the amount of time those individuals have available to devote to pursuits other then survival, and the amount of time the language has been in use. It only makes sense that if more people have been using a language for a longer period of time and have had time to devote to art or other means of developing the language it will be more versitile and complex. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I would imagine the real key is the number of users of a given language combined with the amount of time those individuals have available to devote to pursuits other then survival, and the amount of time the language has been in use. It only makes sense that if more people have been using a language for a longer period of time and have had time to devote to art or other means of developing the language it will be more versitile and complex. |
thats part of it but a HUGE part of it is the way in which the people are or arent isolated. isolation has created languages such as ukrainian, swiss german, mexican spanish, portuguese, and the likes. also depending on the influences of tourism, economics, and social structure, the language can change dramatically in ways you wouldnt expect. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
thats part of it but a HUGE part of it is the way in which the people are or arent isolated. isolation has created languages such as ukrainian, swiss german, mexican spanish, portuguese, and the likes. also depending on the influences of tourism, economics, and social structure, the language can change dramatically in ways you wouldnt expect. |
With regard to isolation... I agree that it has created unique languages or unique dialects, however, the uniqueness is not what we're looking at here... we're talking about variety of words or methods of combining words/sounds/etc. In this regard, isolation would really work against the development of a language into a more complex form. Isolation cuts down on the number of users and likely on the need for using the language et al. This would result in a less, rather then more complex language. Part of the reason English is so complex is because it has had applications all over the world for hundreds of years now... each place where it is used has some unique attributes and interactions with other cultures... these interactions and unique requirements help to develope new words, styles of use, rhetoric devices, phrases, etc. |
|
|
| Masonious |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Part of the reason English is so complex is because it has had applications all over the world for hundreds of years now... each place where it is used has some unique attributes and interactions with other cultures... these interactions and unique requirements help to develope new words, styles of use, rhetoric devices, phrases, etc. |
Its complexity can also be attributed to the various kings that held power during the rise of English. Having Norman kings resulted in an enormous expansion of the language as the Old French and English speaking peoples' languages inevitably became enmeshed. This intermingling of languages including, importantly, Latin allows it to be incredibly flexible when it comes to adding words to its vocabulary.
edit: it's = its :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Omega_M |
There's got to be a basis for comparison of languages. Further, the evolution must depend on the number of years the language has been in existence and as moral said, how much time the civilization has invested in Arts and Culture, rather than simply fighting for survival. Larger number of alphabets may not necessarily point to the richness of a language. But I'm inclined to think that the variety of word (maybe even the grammar and structure ) that can be created out of the pool must be larger than other languages with lesser number of alphabets. More words should => better expression. I was reading about the use of Sanskrit language for machine level computer usage. (Link) . From what I understand, the language is known for its disambiguity of expression. Now, would this quality make it a better language than others ?
| quote: | In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural languages to make them accessible to computer processing. These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor.
But this dichotomy, which has served as a premise underlying much work in the areas of linguistics and artificial intelligence, is a false one. There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old. |
|
|
|
| Masonious |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Further, the evolution must depend on the number of years the language has been in existence and as moral said, how much time the civilization has invested in Arts and Culture, rather than simply fighting for survival. |
I would add to that the culture's economic influence. The expansion of the British Empire spread English all over the world and the rise of America after World War II accelerated this immersion of English into the world's cultures.
Art and Culture are quite important to the spread of a language but they do not place a strain on other nations to adopt the language as failing to adopt, "The Language of Business" does. |
|
|
| Orbax |
the ability for absorption is important. You can romanize just about everything but not being able to say L causes issues.
Having multiple styles doesnt help like hiragana V katakana plus chinese in its multiple forms means when something uniquely english happens and you need a word for it...
well you get engrish.com |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
thats part of it but a HUGE part of it is the way in which the people are or arent isolated. isolation has created languages such as ukrainian, swiss german, mexican spanish, portuguese, and the likes. also depending on the influences of tourism, economics, and social structure, the language can change dramatically in ways you wouldnt expect. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
With regard to isolation... I agree that it has created unique languages or unique dialects, however, the uniqueness is not what we're looking at here... we're talking about variety of words or methods of combining words/sounds/etc. In this regard, isolation would really work against the development of a language into a more complex form. Isolation cuts down on the number of users and likely on the need for using the language et al. This would result in a less, rather then more complex language. Part of the reason English is so complex is because it has had applications all over the world for hundreds of years now... each place where it is used has some unique attributes and interactions with other cultures... these interactions and unique requirements help to develope new words, styles of use, rhetoric devices, phrases, etc. |
reread the bolded part.
edit// isolation plays a big part but also the way in which trade influences languages is enormous. look at the english language for example. has a good amount of its roots in german because the angles and the saxons invading england. this has had a profound effect on the way that english is today. |
|
|
|
|
