Gurdur

Since this thread is getting afflicted with bad SNR anyway, I might as well do a few things I wouldn't have bothered with otherwise.

You're almost there, but not quite; you almost made a good point, but something failed along the way.

I assume you want to say that there are differentials marked between languages in Broca's aphasia, also known as motoric aphasia, and that these differentials can be noticed with fine-tuned tests;
e.g. the OSV form of the German secondary clause being unexpectedly difficult for German Broca's aphasiacs to handle, the SVO being easier for them.

Yet the response to your almost assertion would be ----
not significantly.
No practically significant difference has yet being found between different language groups by similar damage to Broca's area.

Do you have any evidence to contradict my assertion ?
If not, my point stands.

Completely wrong.
For a start, you confuse the neurological substrate of language rather badly.
It does not solely consist of Broca's area (production), but also of Wernicke's area (sensory, reception), also of a neural bridge between the two, and also a circuit together with the cerebellum, and a few odd spots of the POT area.

Please show any case of someone, for example, with both Broca's areas in left and right hemispheres destroyed who is able to produce language; ditto with reception in the case of Wernicke's areas.

Your argument was completely misleading, since you would be leading the lurker to believe that Broca's or Wernicke's are non-essential to language.
Since Broca's and Wernicke's areas have homologous areas on the non-dominant hemisphere, that is hardly surprising.
And most such cases as you cite involved children with a high rate of brain plasticity; i.e. the homologous areas on the non-dominant hemisphere (usually the right) were able to become the dominant Broca's/Wernicke's.

However, these are small, reasonably well-defined areas.
Destroy them on both hemispheres and no language is possible.
Whereas you can destroy a hell of a lot of the frontal cortex and not significantly impair language.

You'ld better review your model.

I simply think you haven't understood the basic topic of the thread.
Certainly your statement above simply has no connection.

Shall I make things very clear for you ?


1) It is asserted by myself no fully developed language today (such as French, English, Swahili, Mongolian, Latvian, but not counting pidgins and creoles) is "better" than any other in the sense that one is somehow magically better at transmitting information between humans who speak that language.

2) In order to examine the case from all angles, first off, I have started with the neurological evidence (from the aphasias, and BTW, you should learn there are other types of aphasia than just Broca's), then the childhood learning evidence.

3) Next I'll be looking at the social evidence.

Feel free.

But restudy that neuro first.
In the meantime, I shall simply carry on the way I have laid out.
At the hip, not at the head --- a distinction which will be made excruiciatingly clear.

Gosh ! My sacred aunt !

Yet a new version of the golden oldy "Eskimo has [insert number of choice] words for snow" !


Man, you should know by now this is one of the oldest b�te noirs of professional linguists.
And it's a very dead corpse of an argument.

Printers have a 1001 words for different fonts and styles --- so the big what ? People develop whatever vocab they need in a place, and no language is stopped from developing such sub-vocabularies of its own where and when as needed.
A trifle more interesting, since this goes back to an interesting language universal of unique morpheme development in colour description.
But again it's simply an old hat of a strawman, since people in each language are able to describe the differences in colours, simply by using comparative phrases.

Think of the English word "orange", for example.

Khoi-San is of course not a single language.
I would be astonished where you able to prove that every single Khoi-San language had absolutely no way to express the concept of "enemy".

German has the word "schadenfreude", which English doesn't;: does that mean English has no way to express "taking delight in the misfortunes of others" ?

I think not. As just shown.

This sounds much like a chicken-and-egg problem to me; but I'll kindly ask you to direct me to an online version of the paper on this, since I need something to sink my teeth into.
And you claim this without even examining the languages of the "barbarians" of that time ? let alone the socioeconomic conditions ?
Your omniscience amazes me.

Aesthetics is extremely culture-bound.

BTW, two completely different cultures can have the same language and yet different aesthetics.
Try the UK and the USA for example.
Precisely.

Since aesthetics are so culturally dependent, you're going to have a great difficulty in tracking down non-trivial aesthetic universals, i.e.
you're not going to be able to say,
"Language X appeals to the great majority of people around the globe even though they don't speak it".

___________

So there we go.
Still feeling sorry you "shot me down" ?

Gurdur

By now I have learnt people simply will not read the relevant posts, , but I'll repeat myself anyway.
Anyone wanting to discuss the scale of worthiness of orthographic systems should start a different thread.

Gurdur

No doubt.
However, you might like to re-read the OP, and the posts explaining why this thread came into being.
Strawman.
I assert all god-conceptions are equal, and equally invalid (i.e., there is no supernatural at all) ---- even though I do not know all the different god-conceptions; prove me wrong.
An eminently possible and valid philosophical stance and argument, and one of whose basic framework I will be following here in dealing with the question of putative comparative worth of languages.
No, go back and re-read mine.
While your objections deeply interest me, and while I think they are exremely interesting, and I would have preferred to discuss this on a much more friendly basis with you, you are inadvertantly trying to drag the thread off-topic --- and to me, the OP topic and its reasons for being are more important at this moment than your own argument.
Therefore I will be tackling the main aim of all this first, before I can really deal with your objections.
BTW, I downloaded all your PDF ref's, and will read at first opportunity.

My apologies if my intentions were not completely clear at the outset; but in all my responses, I've sought to clarify matters.
Wrong again.
Read this and my response to Farren.
Look, I think your argument is interesting --- very much so. And worthwhile.
But unless such a differential effect can be shown today, then it's purely secondary to the purpose of this thread.
And if you read all my posts here, you understand why the answer is:
No.

Should this thread be moved, I will simply ignore the moved thread, and start a new one here:
since the topic is the politics of language ---- which is a political topic, and one prompted by claims in this forum.

Gurdur

Lastly:

Predict away.


BTW, fallacy of poisoning the well.

Since you can't be bothered responding to me directly, I will simply point out your pyschological understanding of my character is on a par with your logic here --- that is, fallacious.

hezekiah jones

Clearly there are but two species of language: that which agrees with Gurdur, and that which does not. The latter will earn you an infinite* string of "you are wrongs" and "I think nots," each accompanied by a purportedly context-softening but idiomatically ambiguous smiley face.

*depending on your resilience/amusement tolerance.

Gurdur

What is really amusing is your pathological obsession with me.

My, my, you really bear a grudge, don't you ?
ROFL.

hezekiah jones

Grudge? What grudge? No - I think you're occasionally hilarious, whether you intend to be or not, which raises a whole 'nother question of linguistic conundrum: unintentional comedy.

Anyway, carry on beating off. Er, beating off your opponents that is.

Gurdur

Troll, troll, troll, away, HJ.
You're amusing.


---> Mods: two examples of trollish off-topic personal attacks here from HJ, no great deal, just noting for future reference if needed.

hezekiah jones

Oh yeah I forgot about the *cough coughs* so make that three examples of *cough* personal attacks *cough*

And at the risk of tempting fate, I can't help but wonder as an aside which is worse: me getting warned or Gurdur warning the moderators.

*cough*

Gurdur

Good-o.
Third example it is.
Pure trolling.
Now notifying the mods.

My, my, HJ, so childish of you, no ?