Sociological Linguistics

[petegray]

Pat Ryan said:
> 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.

I don't wish to be rude, but this is demonstrably untrue.   For example,
Polynesian languages have simpler phonology and morphology than the
Austronesian language from which they must have developed.   Likewise modern
Chinese has simplified its phonology from that of the earliest recoverable
records.  Afrikaans has simplified its morphology from its parent langauge.
Though I grant, we are begging some issues about the meaning of "simple"
here - but without such assumptions, your statement is meaningless.

> 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.

There are many languages which do not regularly show plurals (e.g. Chinese,
and in some cicrumstances, Maori.)    But in any such language the speakers
can remove the ambiguity when they wish.

> 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.

Again, this is patent nonsense.   There is only ambiguity when speakers
allow it, and they only allow it when they can tolerate it.   English has
many words which show polysemy, but this causes no ambiguity, since the
context usually disambiguates them.   When there is any real ambiguity,
speakers find ways of avoiding it.  (e.g. funny-haha and funny-peculiar)

You are making assumptions about language that - in my opinion - simply do
not fit facts.

Peter