|
Ryhmä, johon olet lähettämässä viestiä on Usenet-ryhmä. Tähän ryhmään lähetetyt viestit näkyvät kaikille Internetin käyttäjille.
Vastausviestiäsi ei ole lähetetty.
Lähettäminen onnistui
 |
Uutisryhmät: sci.lang
Lähettäjä: b.sc...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott)
Päivämäärä: Sat, 03 May 2003 04:56:59 GMT
Paikallinen: La 3 touko 2003 07:56
Aihe: Re: A conlang experiment
On 3 May 2003 03:14:41 GMT, mr...@thereeds.org (Mark J. Reed)
wrote: >In article <jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.heai6c0.pmin...@news1.sympatico.ca>, That appears to be because you simply don't recognize the >Wolf Kirchmeir <wwolf...@sympatico.can> wrote: >>The trouble with this definition is that it equates inflection with >>complexity. >Yes, it does, but I don't see that as trouble. complexity inherent in other parts of a language. >> Why should the presence of inflections make a language more You haven't answered the question. >> complex than their absence? >Well, by definition. :) Also, note that I'm not equating complexity >with difficulty, which is far more subjective. >> From what I remember of my middle school Latin, The information conveyed by inflexions in, say, Latin or Old >>inflections hugely simplified syntax -- I could stick an adjective in almost >>anywhere - I didn't have to put them in front, as in English (and in a fixed >>order, too!), or behind, as in French (except when they were put in front, in >>which case they meant something else, and you'd better know which adjectives >>you could put in front and which ones you couldn't.) Not simple at all! >I would not say that English syntax is complicated by the >lack of inflections. Its word order is less flexible, but I >would say that makes it simpler, not more complex. Norse still (by and large) has to be conveyed in English, for instance by word order and prepositional usage. The complexity is simply transferred from one part of the language to another. [...] >>The fact that English syntax is not as simple as it looks is proven by the It isn't a matter of prescription versus description; they don't >>fact that no elementary (=school) text I've have _ever_ seen describes it as >>it is actually done. >Okay, so the texts are prescriptive rather than descriptive; that doesn't >imply that either the "official" or the "actual" grammar is >particularly complex. describe what is actually done even in prescriptively correct usage. >But I didn't say English was simple, either, I am willing to accept the possibility that there is a meaningful >just that it's simpler than some other languages, more complex than others, >and that it's not that hard to tell which is which. sense in which one language is more complex than another, but it will have to involve the entire language, not just the morphology. Brian Sinun on kirjauduttava sisään, ennen kuin voit lähettää viestejä.
Jos haluat lähettää viestin, sinun tulee liittyä tähän ryhmään.
Päivitä lempinimesi ennen viestin lähettämistä tilauksen asetukset -sivulla.
Sinulla ei ole vaadittua oikeutta lähettää viestejä.
| |||||||||||||