Sociological Linguistics

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Joat and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <JoatSimeon at aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 1999 2:03 PM

>> All they needed was to perceive and intend to communicate in another way.

> -- they didn't do that, either.  All they intended to do was talk, and they
> did -- and you can talk just as effectively in any language, in any era of
> the human race.

> Middle English is not one iota more "effective" at communication than Old
> English.  It's just different.  Languages change because they do.

Everything in life of which we have knowledge shows a development from the
simple to the complex.

My own studies and common sense decree that, at some point after the onset
of linguistic communication, languages were simpler than they are now; and
hence, less explicitly expressive.

As just the simplest example, a language which is unable to designate the
plural form of a noun, is bound to introduce an *ambiguity* into a statement
that a language which can does not exhibit.

As another, certain languages have morphemes that have a much greater range
of semantic inclusion than other languages. This also is a source of
potential ambiguity that is not shared by languages that have differentiated
semantic ranges more finely.

Please do not introduce "feel good" sociology into an ostensible linguistic
discussion.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit
ek, at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim
meipi er mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)