Sociological Linguistics

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Nik and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Nik Taylor <fortytwo at ufl.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 10:39 PM

>> "Patrick C. Ryan" wrote:

>> 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.

>Nik counters:

> True, but such a weakness tends to be counteracted by less ambiguity
> elsewhere.  Japanese, for instance does not distinguish between singular
> and plural, but it does distinguish between different levels of
> honorifics, as well as cases.  Overall, languages tend to balance out,
> they are *roughly equal* in complexity.

Pat replies:

"Roughly equal" as defined in the UN Charter?

To take your conclusion seriously, we would have to get into a probably
interminable discussion of what "complex" means when applied to
languages --- likely not a very satisfying undertaking.

Your answer is illuminating, however, in terms of revealing what the real
bottom-line for the sociologically oriented among us: equality.

Complexity has nothing to do with the point I raised. Specifying whether you
are talking to the Shogun or a fishmonger does not help that entity
understand what you are saying any better if you are unable to specify the
distribution of an item under discussion in its class.

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)