Gurdur

Try re-reading my statements. Where do I say languages do not "evolve" ?

The problem here is that you, like others, are committing a fallacy of ambiguity; you use "evolve" as a metaphorical term, then extend that to the point where you think it is in context a real term.

It isn't; the basic "evolution" of languages is a far more complex thing.
If possible, I'll get onto that after I've tackeled the more pressing questions of the politics of language.

Celsus

I didn't say that you said that--it was a kind of shocked response because I wasn't clear what you meant. I was just asking you to clarify.
Wrong, linguistic evolution as a scientific hypothesis (through variation in a population of the speakers/writings and Lamarckian selection through usage) is what I was refering to. Where did you get the idea that I was using the term "metaphorically"? I'm not a linguist, so I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get about languages. But I'm happy to be patient and wait for you to get to that part...

Joel

RufusAtticus

I just want to point out that here you are assuming that the only human languages under consideration are modern ones. There has been much work on the evolution of language that demonstrates that not all possible languages are equal. However, because of that inequality, the less equal ones were eliminated or superceded a long time ago by our ancestors.

RufusAtticus

Yes, there is an active body of literature on the cultural evolution of languages. There is also an active body of literature on the biological evolution of language ability.

Kinross

I don't think that any language is better than any other but it would be convenient if there were one standard language to communicate with globally. I don't care what that language is.

Gurdur

No, I'm not.
Only thing you can convict me of is ignoring pidgen and creole languages, or very isolated Deaf.

Since pidgen and creole languages typically show fast development to a full language within 4 generations, I think it's a fair enough limitation on my part, even if not till now spelled out.
We're really going to fight this one out, I hope.

Makes a change from the usual libertarian/capitalist/socialist crap that goes down here.
Wooo !
Your statement is not qualified enough.
I'ld love to know whose work you're referring to, and what aspects.
Ugh !
What a sweeping statement !
Do you have evidence for this statement as you have put it ?

And I'll be correcting misapprehensions regarding "evolution" of languages very soon.
Suffice to say for the mo, there is no great congruity between biological and cultural evolution.

Gurdur

Du verf�hrst mich, Dir ziemlich hart auf dem Arm zu nehmen.

RufusAtticus

If you're not restricting yourself to modern languages, then you have two problems. 1) You can't demonstrate that all languages are equal because you have an incomplete set. 2) You must assume that language "poofed" into existance and was not a gradual development; however, natura non facit salus.

I suggest that you look at some of the work coming out of Edinburgs' LEC. Try these papers to start with.

1. Smith, K., Brighton, H., and Kirby, S. (2003). Complex Systems in Language Evolution: the cultural emergence of compositional structure.
2. Smith, K., Brighton, H., and Kirby, S. (2002). Language Evolution in a Multi-agent Model: the cultural emergence of compositional structure.
   2001
3. Brighton, H. and Kirby, S. (2001). The Survival of the Smallest: Stability Conditions for the Cultural Evolution of Compositional Language. In J. Kelemen and P. Sos�k, editors, ECAL01, pages 592--601. Springer-Verlag.
4. Brighton, H. and Kirby, S. (2001). Meaning Space Structure Determines the Stability of Culturally Evolved Compositional Language. Technical report, Language Evolution and Computation Research Unit, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, The University of Edinburgh.

You can probably find PDFs on this page.

Okay . . . Let's hope you can provide some references, which so far have been lacking from your posts.

Right . . . I suspect that this statement is based on a faulty, pan-selectionist view of biological evolution.

Gurdur

Nope.
All I need to do is adequately show that there are no significant exceptions within known languages.
As it is, I'm simply willing to assert that, and back up the argument with various lemmas; if you (or anyone else) can come up with a significant exception falsifying the argument. by all means post it, with full explanation as to why.

BTW, on a lightly ironic note:
The problem of full sets occured to me when examining your assertion, since I would really love to see how you think a particular named full natural language has been superseded by others in history because of inherent inadequacy.
Completely wrong.

Care to go back and read what I wrote hinting at Bickerton's work ?
That might give you a clue as to my reasoning.

I will certainly do what I can to look up the papers; however, it wil probably take me up to 3 weeks to get them if they're not available online.
You might like, in that case (where online PDF's are not available) to post the abstracts, and why you think they support your assertions.
Gosh !
My goodness !
If you disagree with a concrete point, say why, and where references are appropriate, I will provide them.
Till then, I'ld suggest non-substantive rhetoric be left out of this thread.

Suspect away.

I'm a fair bit more sophisticated in my evolutionary biology than you apparently suppose.
Otherwise, to repeat:
I'ld suggest non-substantive rhetoric be left out of this thread.

Gurdur

BTW, many thanks for providing the PDF link, Rufus.